Property Tax

karlitob

smccarrick wrote: »

Personally I think it should be based solely on the property size, and a distinction should be made between freehold and leasehold property- as leaseholders must also pay lease fees (and very often non-optional management fees).

What effect, if brought in, do you think that a size based tax would have on house prices. Would it standardise prices more or would other factors still have a large contribution to the price?

karlitob

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Pub and restaurant points was a joke.

So was the grass being greener in the county!!

The_Conductor

karlitob wrote: »

I guess my original point was not taxation or even sustainable taxation.

Its the morality thats associated with introducing a property tax.

If not a property tax- then it would be a tax on something else. A tax on children's shoes brought down John Bruton's government, if my memory serves me right. We need to raise sustainable taxes- rather than the boom and bust income we had over the past 15 years. If not a property tax- then another tax- but it has to be seen as equitable- but also possible to pay it.

karlitob wrote: »

Every man's house is his castle. I work, I earn a buck, I pay tax on everything I use and consume. I have a mortgage, I pay a large interest rate to the bank (And don't start comparing to 1980 - mortgages where at a more sustainable level then despite what houses cost today). My dwelling is inviolable. I can't understand nor believe that I must be a levy on owning my own home. I can't fathom it.

Everyone pays tax on all they earn and consume. Your home is not your castle though. Most of us pay interest to the banks for our homes- aside from pensioners, who by and large have paid off their mortgages- however to suggest we chase them as they have larger assets than do you or I- would invoke the wrath of grannies and grandad's all over the country. We could get around this- by massively increasing death duties and set them to kick in at very low levels- its how we ended up with so many wonderful estates in public hands such as Johnstown Castle etc.

karlitob wrote: »

I understand taxation for the local services and national services. But to be taxed because I broke my hump to get the best that I could for my family and now to be penalised for it, for me, it just feels like the last straw.

You're not being taxed because you did the best for your family- you're being taxed because you live here. Perhaps it is time for us to assess whether we'd be better off packing our bags and moving? With the personal insolvency act- maybe some people might actually consider it. If it is the last straw- make your public representatives know your feelings- they are there because you elected them. They have to have some purpose......

karlitob wrote: »

As for provision of services, is their a contract in place between the householder and county council. Do I know the minimum level of service expected and is this the same for every county council. What influence do I have over this - voting for councillors? For example, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown are building another library - there are tonnes of them in DLRCOCO. Yet, one in Limerick City and one in Limerick County for example. Should there be a 1 library per 3000 person ratio for every citizen in the country?

Thanks for your thoughts

Is there a contract in place between householders and councils? Lol- I wish there were. Then again- I think most councils should be abolished- the duplication of services in this country is ridiculous- parochial politics, is at least as much to blame for the mess we're in, as are the bankers and our politicians. I have no idea how many libraries there are in Dunlaoghaire Rathdown- I do know that the rates they charge local businesses are nearly 14 times the level Limerick Co. Co. charge local businesses in Limerick (which is at least partially why so many businesses in DLRCOCO are going up the wall- though their particularly awful parking regimes don't help either).

I don't think a contract with local councils would be of much use. I don't think local councils, in their current form- are much use.

The_Conductor

karlitob wrote: »

You made the point that those who shout loudest win and I guess I was responding the significant campaign against the household charge, and as you say, upcoming property tax and this, as we see, hasn't held true.

The reason it hasn't held true- is because politically its been possible to pawn this off on the troika (and its easier to blame faceless bureaucrats from Brussels than it is for a property tax, than it is to tell pensioners that we're going to halve their pensions, take away their fuel, electricity and phone allowances, their travel passes etc- though it looks like we may have to address these in due course- as we can't cosset them as a group any longer).

NIMAN

I don't know why so many are fretting about this property tax, sure won't half the country just not bother paying it like the household charge?

The_Conductor

NIMAN wrote: »

I don't know why do many are fretting about this property tax, sure won't half the country just not bother paying it like the household charge?

You don't have that option- and as for the half who didn't pay the household charge- you may have heard of the cases going before the courts from October? Its a first for Ireland to try such large numbers of cases together- and is expected to set a precedent, should similar situations arise in future.

NIMAN

Why have you not got the option to refuse payment?

And if you can't 'not pay', why did they not employ the same system for the household charge?

drunkmonkey

NIMAN wrote: »

I don't know why so many are fretting about this property tax, sure won't half the country just not bother paying it like the household charge?

This is the problem, I don't know how there going to enforce it, will the 2.2 million getting a social welfare payment every week be exempt? Will the other 2 million get the hump and the vast majority refuse to pay like the household charge?

I'm racking my brains trying to think of some fair way to get money out of people and I can't think of one. There is no universal product we all use and could tax fairly.
The only solution is to make more money, that involves bringing new products currently traded in the black market into the tax net. If that's done there's no need for a property tax.

NIMAN

drunkmonkey wrote: »

This is the problem, I don't know how there going to enforce it, will the 2.2 million getting a social welfare payment every week be exempt? Will the other 2 million get the hump and the vast majority refuse to pay like the household charge?

I'm racking my brains trying to think of some fair way to get money out of people and I can't think of one. There is no universal product we all use and could tax fairly.
The only solution is to make more money, that involves bringing new products currently traded in the black market into the tax net. If that's done there's no need for a property tax.

But these figures aren't exclusive of each other. There's only 1.7million homes afaik, so some of the 2.2mill you mention are contained in the other group.

drunkmonkey

NIMAN wrote: »

But these figures aren't exclusive of each other. There's only 1.7million homes afaik, so some of the 2.2mill you mention are contained in the other group.

How many have to pay the €100 charge at the moment? Everybody(1.7m) regardless of situation?

lotusm

Think the revenue commissioners will be in charge of collecting household charge/property Tax.... They will put the fear of God into People once the letters start popping through the letter box.... Also once the property price database/register is up which will contain the selling price of house in your area there be no escaping on the Valuation of the house as the means of calculating the tax as this is what in other countries.:mad:

NIMAN

Isn't the figure for 'registration' around the 800,000 mark?

And registration doesn't mean that 800,000 have paid. Plenty of these are probably exempt.

Victor

karlitob wrote: »

I presume you're a troll.

If you have a problem with a post, report it.

karlitob

Victor wrote: »

If you have a problem with a post, report it.

I see that the subtlety of my sarcasm was missed. I must try harder to be more apparent

jmayo

karlitob wrote: »

Hi

Thoughts would be welcome.

I read about a new value-based property tax today in the Times. I don't want to seem too naive but why should I pay a tax to live in my own home - I work, I pay a mortgage, I paid stamp duty - really what more do they want. If I can't pay am I evicted. If I am unemployed, min wage, pensioner - what happens? And please no 'but they do it in Europe' lines. It just doesn't seem morally right to put a tax on someones home.

And neither would it seem right to charge someone for dying, but it is done.

karlitob wrote: »

Why would I bother buying a house if I have to pay a tax on top of a stamp duty and a mortgage and bin charges and water charges and high electricity and gas prices.

Perish the thought one would pay for gas, electricity, refuse collection and water ?
These are things you use and really should have no bearing on how much tax you do or don't have to pay.
Same with mortgage.
Note I didn't include stamp duty which is a tax already paid on your property.

karlitob wrote: »

I totally believe that you should pay for what you use but surely there is a ceiling on all this.

See above.
You dicate the ceiling on 3 of those things.

karlitob wrote: »

Also my salary is standardised across the state. I get paid the same to live in Dublin as does my colleague in the middle of rural Cork. How is it fair that we are do not pay the same on our home. I feel that because of the lack of jobs and the centralisation of the country that I must work in Dublin. For that I am penalised. Should there be a dublin weighting?

So you think that someone in a basic bungalow a few miles outside of Dunmanway or Kanturk should pay the same as someone in a basic three bed semi in Sandyford, Dundrum or Stillorgan ?

What are the comparable values of the two properties ?

Lots of capital cities, large cities do have a weighting added to the salaries for working there, but Ireland is small and cost of living generally was not that much different between Dublin as elsewhere for this to have been in affect.

someuser905 wrote: »

dublin paying for the culchies as usual :rolleyes:

Good look drinking your own water.

TheTurk1972 wrote: »

If its about services provided, then its not per house that this property tax should be paid. Its per person living in it. Whether they own the house or not. Otherwise it is discrimination against property owners.
Think Council tax.

Ahh let me guess a landlord ?

No a property tax is paid by the owner of the property not the resident.
That is where a residential or council tax comes in.

The whole 100 euro residential tax and the way it was phrased has muddied this discussion totally.
Once again congrats to the government and the mandrins in the civil service on that one. :rolleyes:

BTW we must not have discrimination against property owners lest it is not positive like taxbreaks, ehhh ?

EricPraline

jmayo wrote: »

So you think that someone in a basic bungalow a few miles outside of Dunmanway or Kanturk should pay the same as someone in a basic three bed semi in Sandyford, Dundrum or Stillorgan ?

What are the comparable values of the two properties ?

I'm genuinely curious to know why you believe they shouldn't have to pay amounts that are not reasonable comparable? There are plenty of basic bungalows and ex-council properties in the areas you mention. However, the relative discrepancy between services and amenities is already factored into the difference between the asking prices. E.g.

http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=661577

http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=582719

Is an elderly person on a state pension living in an ex-council house in Stillorgan in a far better position to pay a property tax than an elderly person living in a bungalow in Kanturk?

jmayo

EricPraline wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious to know why you believe they shouldn't have to pay amounts that are not reasonable comparable? There are plenty of basic bungalows and ex-council properties in the areas you mention. However, the relative discrepancy between services and amenities is already factored into the difference between the asking prices. E.g.

http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=661577

http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=582719

Is an elderly person on a state pension living in an ex-council house in Stillorgan in a far better position to pay a property tax than an elderly person living in a bungalow in Kanturk?

Hang on I think we have wires crossed here.

The fairest means is to have it based on value and to a huge extend that is often decided by location.

Thus if your were to take two identical houses (not likely since not usual to find semi Ds in middle of countryside hence my use of bungalow) in two different locations, the location can decide how valuable the house is and thus is a big factor in deciding the property tax.

A 2,000 sq ft house in the countryside in Kildare or some other county near Dublin would probably be paying more tax than a 1500 sq foot house in Stillorgan, but on the flip side a 3,000 sq foot house up a bóithrín 10 miles from Bangor Erris might be paying less.

And you cannot blanket an area and say all properties in it are treated the same.
Not all houses in Stillorgan or anywhere else are all the same.

Oh and as usual in this country those on state pensions won't be paying it so don't worry about the pensioners in Stillorgan or kanturk.
Neither will the career unemployed even if they own property.

Idbatterim

Oh and as usual in this country those on state pensions won't be paying it so don't worry about the pensioners in Stillorgan or kanturk.
Neither will the career unemployed even if they own property.

is this true?

NIMAN

Maybe this 'value based' is just kite-flying to judge public opinion?

tim9002

The way I look at it is that we always had a property tax called high stamp duty and before that rates. Many people didn't have to pay the high stamp duty rates (e.g. first time buyers) or purchased so long ago that it was a small sum in comparison to what some people had to pay in the last ten years or so. Property tax by way of high stamp duty rates were very unfair and as we know now not sustainable. As stamp duty has now more or less been abolished a more sustainable system had to replace it. An annual property tax is a much fairer system. We'll just have to see how fair our system turns out to be.

jmayo

Idbatterim wrote: »

is this true?

Well as usual the grey vote will try and ensure that pensioners, probably even if they happen to be Tony O'Reilly or Michael Smurfit, will probably be immune from this.
Then the unemployed, even if they have been unemployed all the way through the celtic tiger and bubble, are the disadvantaged and needy so they will be immune as well.

NIMAN wrote: »

Maybe this 'value based' is just kite-flying to judge public opinion?

What is the alternative.
As other poster above mentioned you have small houses in cities as well as big houses in the country.
Fir example you can't just assume everyone in D4 should pay the same since D4 includes Shrewsbury Road and Ringsend.

TheTurk1972

2 houses in semi detached unit.

1 has 2 people living in it. The other has 6 people living in it.
The same total property tax amount will apply to both houses.
yet one has 3 times as many people availing of the services this tax is for.
Hardly fair.

jmayo

TheTurk1972 wrote: »

2 houses in semi detached unit.

1 has 2 people living in it. The other has 6 people living in it.
The same total property tax amount will apply to both houses.
yet one has 3 times as many people availing of the services this tax is for.
Hardly fair.

What you want is a poll tax.

I wish people would get it through their heads a property tax is based on property, site, location and payable by the benefical owner, not who happens to live there.

A residential tax is going to be next and that will be payable by the residents.

BTW the more inhabitants then the more they should pay in water rates and refuse collections.
That is assuming they are into standard levels of cleanliness and hygiene.

Victor

TheTurk1972 wrote: »

2 houses in semi detached unit.

1 has 2 people living in it. The other has 6 people living in it.
The same total property tax amount will apply to both houses.
yet one has 3 times as many people availing of the services this tax is for.
Hardly fair.

The flip side of that argument would be large numbers of vacant properties held by speculators - should they be tax exempt?

Zamboni

Couple of throughts on this.

Value based property tax is wrong. Value is a constantly moving target. With wide ranging levels of inconsistency of public administration (from slow to retarded) in this country, it wouldn't and couldn't ever be introduced equitably.
Who is the valuer? Are there conflicts of interest?
How often is it valued?
What is the evidence base the property is valued upon? CSO? Property register? DAFT!

Divided we fall - There is already a rural v urban argument on this thread despite the fact that no legislation has been published. WE are Irish citizens being asked to pay a made up tax to fill the black hole left by Brian Lenihan and the banking elite. This has never been about paying for a library or a streetlight.
If you are to busy arguing with each other over septic tanks versus a bus service then you are suitably distracted from the real crime that is taking place here. Wake up.

Property taxation by a state upon its citizens is wrong.
Tax income, tax profits and tax the use of a service fine, but if you tax ownership then the concept of ownership becomes obsolete. All property is owned by the state by default.

Inequity - People are talking about exemptions for welfare recipients. I would argue that if you own an asset such a house you should not be entitled to welfare.

Pensioners - If this property tax is to be introduced there has to be a real debate as to whether we as a society believe that pensioners that cannot afford a property charge should have to sell their assets and buy a more appropriate dwelling. What's more important - property market turnover or a person having the right to remain in a house they worked and paid for?

There is a massive drive away from capitalist ideals in this country and that scares the hell out of me. Socialising private debt. Repossession moratorium resulting in similar ownership, regardless of effort. Lack of consequences for incompetence or malevolence.
We really, really have to draw a line somewhere.

And there was no one left to speak for me.

The_Conductor

I'm going to play devils advocate here- so please don't attack me over it.

Value based property tax is wrong.

I don't think anyone can argue with you that value based property tax, is inequitable and damn difficult to get a reasonable hand on. You do say that value is a moving target- not necessarily- at the moment we have consistently falling values (even the brief increases in South Dublin and Clare have now reversed). In all probability- aside from a few dead cat bounces, a fundamental level will be reached, and any increase thereafter will in all probability keep pace with inflation, nothing more, nothing less. When will we bottom out- god only knows- but property tax, water charges and a plethora of other taxes aren't going to help matters. Personally I think the tax should be composed of a formula containing elements of-

Is the property a leasehold or freehold property (leaseholds- even apartments, normally have massive charges associated with them already- and should be treated more leniently).
What size is the property- I'm sorry- someone with a shoebox shouldn't have to pay the same as someone living in a mansion- regardless of where they live.
Include a site element- a standalone property on an acre should be given a more onerous tax than someone in a highrise apartment block.
Valuation- to be honest- I wouldn't include a 'value' element at all- precisely for the reasons you outlined.

Divided we fall - There is already a rural v urban argument on this thread despite the fact that no legislation has been published. WE are Irish citizens being asked to pay a made up tax to fill the black hole left by Brian Lenihan and the banking elite. This has never been about paying for a library or a streetlight.
If you are to busy arguing with each other over septic tanks versus a bus service then you are suitably distracted from the real crime that is taking place here. Wake up.

Legislation may not have been published- we have however signed up to implement a value based property tax, to the Troika- so regardless of whether or not its legislated for- we have agreed to implement it.

You are right- its not about paying for a library or streetlights- but only in the broadest sense- as these are services provided by councils, not central government. The purpose of this tax is to be a sustainable tax, to move away from cyclical taxes- such as stamp duty. This tax is raising funds for central government- akin to income tax- or the plethora of other taxes that are deducted from our paychecks.

If it is to be a value based tax (as we have agreed with the troika)- then it quite simply is an urban versus rural tax- as its a simple statement of fact that urban property in general costs significantly more than rural property, full stop.

Property taxation by a state upon its citizens is wrong.

Why is it wrong? Would you rather we put a couple of pence on both income tax bands? Would you rather a massive reform of death duties? We need to raise taxes. Where we raise them from is open to negotiation- however they are going to be increased, surely that much is clear?

Tax income, tax profits and tax the use of a service fine, but if you tax ownership then the concept of ownership becomes obsolete. All property is owned by the state by default.

How do you make out that all property is owned by the state? And if all property is owned by the state- surely a property tax is a tax on the provision of a service (possession of said property?)? Would a fairer way of dealing with this be by means of ridiculously onerous death duties with very low or no exemption levels? I'd like to see what the various lobby groups would have to say about that!

Inequity - People are talking about exemptions for welfare recipients. I would argue that if you own an asset such a house you should not be entitled to welfare.

The sanctity of the family home does have to be addressed- it is ridiculous that you can owe silly amounts of money- but can't have a lien put on your biggest asset of all. I'm not saying if you own a house, you should not be entitled to welfare- I am saying you should be made dispose of it by any means, but would still be entitled to housing- at an appropriate minimal level. I don't see why a social welfare recipient should have a far better standard of living- than does someone working their butt off.

Pensioners - If this property tax is to be introduced there has to be a real debate as to whether we as a society believe that pensioners that cannot afford a property charge should have to sell their assets and buy a more appropriate dwelling. What's more important - property market turnover or a person having the right to remain in a house they worked and paid for?

Why should pensioners live in large houses that they brought up their families in? Surely a smaller dwelling, more suited to their current circumstances, would be better for everyone? It would free up family homes for young families- and provide appropriate accommodation and care for the elderly? I don't see what good it is having the old and infirm living in large old houses to be honest with you?

There is a massive drive away from capitalist ideals in this country and that scares the hell out of me. Socialising private debt. Repossession moratorium resulting in similar ownership, regardless of effort. Lack of consequences for incompetence or malevolence.
We really, really have to draw a line somewhere.

Socialising private debt is a massive injustice on those of us who were prudent- and is precisely why German and Finnish taxpayers are so against giving an inch to Greece and other peripheral economies who they view as spending *their* money on frivolous things (such as classifying hairdressing as a hazardous occupation, worthy or retirement on a full pension at age 50). The perception (rightly so) is that serious reform of society has to occur in peripheral countries- and in an Irish context we are having it spelt out- higher taxation, lower social welfare entitlements- and no budget overruns such as the mess in the Department of Health.

Socialising private debt means there is no stigma associated with incurring debts that you are incapable of servicing- and the prudent person who properly manages their finances is left holding the can for their neighbour...... This is wrong on so many different levels........

And there was no one left to speak for me.

No-one left to speak for any of us- I don't know why we even bother to vote to be honest- they don't represent you or me.........

Trampas

if they tax on value on homes will that stop people improving their homes due to the tax?

Sam Kade

jmayo wrote: »

What you want is a poll tax.

I wish people would get it through their heads a property tax is based on property, site, location and payable by the benefical owner, not who happens to live there.

A residential tax is going to be next and that will be payable by the residents.

BTW the more inhabitants then the more they should pay in water rates and refuse collections.
That is assuming they are into standard levels of cleanliness and hygiene.

So you are saying as well as paying tax for owning your own home you also will have to pay tax to live in it :rolleyes:

Grolschevik

Zamboni wrote: »

There is a massive drive away from capitalist ideals in this country[/I]

I don't discuss politics on Boards. Because of most of the people who do are talking nonsense. However, here you're talking nonsense, unless you're a libertarian. And then it's still nonsense.

The various and multifarious crises of capitalism are at the root of the problem. It's not 'socialism' when capitalist governments bail out capitalist enterprises. They may have, by one use of the word, 'socialised' the debt, but this is about as far from socialism as you can get.



I'm done here. I won't be replying to this specific post. Unless I get really annoyed again...

Zamboni

Grolschevik wrote: »

I don't discuss politics on Boards. Because of most of the people who do are talking nonsense. However, here you're talking nonsense, unless you're a libertarian. And then it's still nonsense.

The various and multifarious crises of capitalism are at the root of the problem. It's not 'socialism' when capitalist governments bail out capitalist enterprises. They may have, by one use of the word, 'socialised' the debt, but this is about as far from socialism as you can get.

I have some Ladybird guides if you require further reading.

I'm done here. I won't be replying to this specific post. Unless I get really annoyed again...

Capitalism is the best of a terribly inadequate group of theories upon which to base our societies. Capitalism is not the root of the problem. That specific honour would lie with corruption and abuse of capitalism.
That is not nonsense, that is subjective.

This is now off topic so I won't be replying either.
I don't feel the need to reciprocate your insult.