Upcoming Irish property tax to cost 'on average' €1000 per house.(can you afford it?)

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

Here's one idea for you then.
How about we encourage people to take up the jobs that are there rather than staying on welfare.
Maybe a reduction in their income tax or PRSI for the first year if they take up employment and sign off.

Each one would save the exchequer €15-€20k in welfare payments and would at least be getting something in return.

I stand by to be shot down by the pro-taxers as usual.

So you want to reward someone with coming off of welfare with a tax break.

Why not just offer the job to someone who wants to do it.

If people are refusing jobs because they are better off on Social Welfare, then its the welfare system that needs to be looked at wouldnt you think.

noodler

kr7 wrote: »

I stand by to be shot down by the pro-taxers as usual.

??

Only 1/3 of the adjustments have been on the tax side. The majority have been on the expenditure side.

The phrase 'Pro-taxers' is just a childish cop-out.

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

So you want to reward someone with coming off of welfare with a tax break.

Why not just offer the job to someone who wants to do it.

If people are refusing jobs because they are better off on Social Welfare, then its the welfare system that needs to be looked at wouldnt you think.

Replies as expected. LOL.

Funny that though because when I suggested previously that welfare should be cut by 10% across the board, different pro-taxers shot that down too.

Let people stay caught in the welfare trap then, no skin off my nose.

kr7

noodler wrote: »

??

Only 1/3 of the adjustments have been on the tax side. The majority have been on the expenditure side.

The phrase 'Pro-taxers' is just a childish cop-out.

You are pro-tax aren't you?

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Let people stay caught in the welfare trap then, no skin off my nose.

The 'welfare trap' has nothing to do with a job that isn't viable without having a lowered income tax deduction applied to it. What happens after the first year then?

Chips Lovell

I'm all for measures to encourage people back to work.

However, given that the unemployment rate is now 14 per cent, when it was 4 per cent only a few years ago, surely that's indicative that at least two thirds of people on the dole want to work if the jobs are there? It seems to be a waste of money to give sweeteners to people to take jobs when they probably would anyway.

That's the reason why most of the spending on job creation is going on to the employer side, encouraging companies to create jobs, which is where the real problem is.

donalg1

alastair wrote: »

The 'welfare trap' has nothing to do with a job that isn't viable without having a lowered income tax deduction applied to it. What happens after the first year then?

They go back onto the normal rate of income tax and the government subsidise the difference maybe just to ensure they stay off social welfare!!

alastair

donalg1 wrote: »

They go back onto the normal rate of income tax and the government subsidise the difference maybe just to ensure they stay off social welfare!!

An initial state subsidy for the job would make more sense then - it clarifies whether the job seeker can get by on the salary beyond the first year.

tayto lover

kr7 wrote: »

You are pro-tax aren't you?

I always thought that if you were in favour of something you were "pro".
And if you were against something you were "anti".
Maybe there is a new term I hadn't heard of "PRAnTi".

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

They go back onto the normal rate of income tax and the government subsidise the difference maybe just to ensure they stay off social welfare!!

And you are laughing at that idea?

No wonder the country's fcuked.

How about you come up with a few ideas instead of knocking everyone else's or would that be beyond you?

Here, I'll give you a head start.
Lets tax our way of the recession.

Over to you.

kr7

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I'm all for measures to encourage people back to work.

However, given that the unemployment rate is now 14 per cent, when it was 4 per cent only a few years ago, surely that's indicative that at least two thirds of people on the dole want to work if the jobs are there? It seems to be a waste of money to give sweeteners to people to take jobs when they probably would anyway.

That's the reason why most of the spending on job creation is going on to the employer side, encouraging companies to create jobs, which is where the real problem is.

Say, for instance, someone is getting €20k a year on welfare and they are given a tax break to go off welfare and back to work.
So they pay, maybe €1000 in the first year in tax and PRSI.

Is there not a net gain for the state of €21,000?

noodler

kr7 wrote: »

Lets tax our way of the recession.

Your posts are becoming laughable now.

It has already been demonstrated that the majority of the adjustment so far (and planned in the future) is on the expenditure side.

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

And you are laughing at that idea?

No wonder the country's fcuked.

How about you come up with a few ideas instead of knocking everyone else's or would that be beyond you?

Here, I'll give you a head start.
Lets tax our way of the recession.

Over to you.

I gave you a solution to your little problem, I said the job should be given to someone who wants it. And not to someone who wants it provided the government reduce thier income tax for the first while they are doing the job.

kr7

noodler wrote: »

Your posts are becoming laughable now.

It has already been demonstrated that the majority of the adjustment so far (and planned in the future) is on the expenditure side.

Are you ok there, a bit tired maybe?
Is that why you can't read posts as their meant?

The 'let's tax our way of the recession' was meant as an idea that donal might have.

You have spent your day insulting other posters who don't agree with you, it's becoming a bit boring now.

Give it a rest.

Chips Lovell

kr7 wrote: »

Say, for instance, someone is getting €20k a year on welfare and they are given a tax break to go off welfare and back to work.
So they pay, maybe €1000 in the first year in tax and PRSI.

Is there not a net gain for the state of €21,000?

I think you've misunderstood what I wrote. You are assuming unemployed people need incentives to take jobs. I'm speculating that most of them don't. So in your example, the person who took the job was likely to have taken it tax break or no tax break.

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

I gave you a solution to your little problem, I said the job should be given to someone who wants it. And not to someone who wants it provided the government reduce thier income tax for the first while they are doing the job.

Isn't that the reason we have a low corporate tax rate?
To encourage multi-nationals to come here?

Same thing in microcosm.

Any ideas yourself donal?

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Are you ok there, a bit tired maybe?
Is that why you can't read posts as their meant?

The 'let's tax our way of the recession' was meant as an idea that donal might have.

You have spent your day insulting other posters who don't agree with you, it's becoming a bit boring now.

Give it a rest.

Nope - I guess she doesn't get it. It's nothing but tax, tax, tax don'cha know?

kr7

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I think you've misunderstood what I wrote. You are assuming unemployed people need incentives to take jobs. I'm speculating that most of them don't. So in your example, the person who took the job was likely to have taken it tax break or no tax break.

All I'm saying is that we need to be thinking outside the box for a while.

The policy's of this government so far have only seen the unemployment rate rise.

Remember the 100,000 jobs they promised?

tayto lover

kr7 wrote: »

All I'm saying is that we need to be thinking outside the box for a while.

The policy's of this government so far have only seen the unemployment rate rise.

Remember the 100,000 jobs they promised?

Wasting your time. You're dealing with the Twins, Ernie and Danny.
Your proposals are as good as the internship programme where the employer gets all the perks. But then FG are all for the big men.

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

Isn't that the reason we have a low corporate tax rate?
To encourage multi-nationals to come here?

Same thing in microcosm.

Any ideas yourself donal?

Seriously though why would the Government give someone a tax break to go back to work when there are probably 10,000 people still on Social Welfare that would do the same job without the tax break.

Waste of money I think, but then you do like coming up with ways for the Government to waste money dont you.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Remember the 100,000 jobs they promised?

I have to say - they way the 'no property tax' camp hung on Inda's missives over the years would do Kim Jong-il proud.

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

Seriously though why would the Government give someone a tax break to go back to work when there are probably 10,000 people still on Social Welfare that would do the same job without the tax break.

Waste of money I think, but then you do like coming up with ways for the Government to waste money dont you.

No ideas yourself then.
Thought not.:rolleyes:

Chips Lovell

From my own point of view, I'd support a property tax even if we didn't have a deficit. I don't see this as a measure of last resort, rather a component of a more balanced taxation system.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

No ideas yourself then.

Warning: Quality of idea not guaranteed. The economic value of your idea may go down as well as up. e&oe

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

I have to say - they way the 'no property tax' camp hung on Inda's missives over the years would do Kim Jong-il proud.

Enda is to politics what the mad priest, Fr Con Horan, is to sport.

tayto lover

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

From my own point of view, I'd support a property tax even if we didn't have a deficit. I don't see this as a measure of last resort, rather a component of a more balanced taxation system.

Please explain how it's balanced. Also what way will farmers be assessed for it please.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

Enda is to politics what the mad priest, Fr Con Horan, is to sport.

Con = 'James'

I don't catch sports people quoting Horan's statements at the drop of a hat though. They tend to just get on and do their own thing.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

Please explain how it's balanced. Also what way will farmers be assessed for it please.

Camp B. Let them pay the tax.

Chips Lovell

tayto lover wrote: »

Please explain how it's balanced. Also what way will farmers be assessed for it please.

The Commission on Taxation Report (which I think I mentioned in another thread) recommended it and its findings are what convinced me of its benefits. Chapter six is worth a read.

For me it it broadens the tax base, makes our tax revenues more stable by moving away from reliance on stamp duty, and is less likely to distort the labour market. It'll probably have the bonus effect of rooting out some more landlord types and getting them into the tax net.

I've no idea what the crack will be with farmers. My understanding is that it's a tax on houses, not land.

kr7

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

From my own point of view, I'd support a property tax even if we didn't have a deficit. I don't see this as a measure of last resort, rather a component of a more balanced taxation system.

From my point of view, I'd support a tax similar to a 'council tax' like they have in the UK.

I will not support, nor will not pay a property tax that discriminates against people who bought / are paying for their own homes and not expecting the state to provide a home for them.

My ideals are different from yours I presume?