Property tax rate

avalon68

bullvine wrote: »

I wasnt one of the unlucky people who got a crazy mortgage and I know things are unfair but some people paid 30k Stampduty on a fairly average house in 2006 and now are gonna have to pay around 1000 annually on top of that and what about people who have to pay management fees on top of that.

See, I dont think they were unlucky. They made a financial decision to buy a house, pay stamp duty etc. Nobody forced them to do that. If they truly cant afford to pay, its unlikely they will have to - but if it means giving up a few luxuries or a holiday etc, then so be it. In the long term a property tax is a good thing for Ireland - we need a sustainable tax income. Its up to voters to demand better local government and services. Maybe the charge could be split or something - 80% to local authority, 20% central coffers.

howamidifferent

avalon68 wrote: »

See, I dont think they were unlucky. They made a financial decision to buy a house, pay stamp duty etc. Nobody forced them to do that. If they truly cant afford to pay, its unlikely they will have to - but if it means giving up a few luxuries or a holiday etc, then so be it. In the long term a property tax is a good thing for Ireland - we need a sustainable tax income. Its up to voters to demand better local government and services. Maybe the charge could be split or something - 80% to local authority, 20% central coffers.

Maybe if the property tax was used to pay politicians wages, and we could all determine at what rate it should then be set to pay such wages and decide based on their performance (or not) how much we kick in annually they might have an incentive to do something useful instead of sucking the taxpayer dry at the trough with unvouched expenses etc.. :cool:

murphaph

cytex wrote: »

Yes that is your local goverment neither here or there the population. Again the national goverment and local goverment are different it is what i am trying to get at . This tax money goes into a centeral pool your tax money goes to your local area . There is zero accountability in the local area in this country.

That's a different but related problem that needs addressing IMO, but we don't have the time to wait before introduction of a property tax tbh. The defecit is too big.

cytex wrote: »

Isnt that a one of payment ??

No, Grundsteuer a recurring payment. There is also a "stamp duty" type tax that you have to pay when purchasing property. In Berlin that is currently 4.5% of purchase price.
If you want you can stick this into Google and read about it and how it is determined. Note from that Wiki that this tax can be passed on in full to tenants as it is a genuine cost associated with renting out a property. In Ireland neither the NPPR nor Household Charge are currently allowable expenses, so I doubt our property tax will be either.

cytex wrote: »

Then name a country with it as similar if you cant then it is unique. We do not need to steal peoples property it does not widden the tax base it is the same people getting fecked over with over half there wages going in tax that has to pay it . Please stop spinning .

Please calm your tone down a bit. If I disagree with you I am not "spinning" ffs. Nobody likes paying taxes, but they aren't stealing (legally anyway!)

dean23

But who is going to pay?
The following don’t want to pay
People who paid stamp duty
People who paid development levy’s
People on the dole
People on pensions
People in social housing
And i even heard that people on under €28k don’t want to pay

who_me

avalon68 wrote: »

Yeah, seriously! Live on elevated ground....view tax! Some states have it, some dont. But in all fairness, the money is pumped back locally and sports facilities, schools, etc are top notch in this area. And a yearly town meeting outlines the tax take and propositions for what needs funding. For example, this year there was a vote on teachers salary and benefit packages - everyone who paid a local tax had a vote and could make their case. It was interesting to watch.

Interesting, thanks. It would be interesting to see if people would be more willing (sorry, less unwilling) to pay tax if they had a more direct say in how it was spent. As opposed to a group unilaterally syphoning money from individuals, with no real indication or guarantee of how that money will be spent.

For instance, if someone said to me: "You received a 'free' college education, you now have to pay some of that back", I'd have no objection to that. Other than I'm nearly broke! But a property ownership tax - even if for the same amount - I find repugnant.

avalon68

who_me wrote: »

Interesting, thanks. It would be interesting to see if people would be more willing (sorry, less unwilling) to pay tax if they had a more direct say in how it was spent. As opposed to a group unilaterally syphoning money from individuals, with no real indication or guarantee of how that money will be spent.

For instance, if someone said to me: "You received a 'free' college education, you now have to pay some of that back", I'd have no objection to that. Other than I'm nearly broke! But a property ownership tax - even if for the same amount - I find repugnant.

What was really interesting about that meeting is that it was so calm and matter of fact - no "rabble rabble rabble....our money....paycuts...rabble rabble". The reasons for wanting cuts were proposed, along with alternatives that would need to be cut if money wasn't saved and other things that could be cut. It was all so civil it was surprising - I was all ready for fireworks!

I would think that free education wont be the case for long more - and I dont have a problem with that if it raises standards in Irish universities. I have seen firsthand how wonderful a well funded institution can be and hope that one day Irish colleges reach that standard. I dont have a problem with a property tax - I wont like paying it, but I will. All I can do is hope in the future, the deficit is bridged, the croke park agreement is but a distant bad memory and the country gets back on its feet

tayto lover

avalon68 wrote: »

Yeah, seriously! Live on elevated ground....view tax! Some states have it, some dont. But in all fairness, the money is pumped back locally and sports facilities, schools, etc are top notch in this area. And a yearly town meeting outlines the tax take and propositions for what needs funding. For example, this year there was a vote on teachers salary and benefit packages - everyone who paid a local tax had a vote and could make their case. It was interesting to watch.

What if you live in a hole?

ardmacha

What if you live in a hole?

you could have a Rabbitte tax!

mikom

tayto lover wrote: »

What if you live in a hole?

Householed charge.

tayto lover

who_me wrote: »

A view tax? Seriously? How on earth does that work?

Don't elaborate or we will have it in here before we know where we are.

Idbatterim

how much is this tax expected to generate per annum in the medium term i.e 3 or 4 years from now?

Good loser

cytex wrote: »

Actually your wrong he will never own this property with this tax. the most he can own is 99.75% If the goverment dont decide they are "owed" a bigger share.

only a idiot would pay this tax full stop it signes over a portion of YOUR property to the state For absoultely nothing in return . It is Theft plain and simple.

Property tax is a wealth tax but just on residential property - the largest store of wealth in the economy.

Beloved of socialists - but not the Irish brand.

Only those that own a house etc will have to pay it - just as car owners pay car tax and those that don't do not have to pay it.

Should car owners in negative equity (i.e. all car owners) be exempted
from car tax?

The tax is being introduced now for only two reasons

(1) the money is needed

(2) the Troika insists

tayto lover

Good loser wrote: »

Property tax is a wealth tax but just on residential property - the largest store of wealth in the economy.

Beloved of socialists - but not the Irish brand.

Only those that own a house etc will have to pay it - just as car owners pay car tax and those that don't do not have to pay it.

Should car owners in negative equity (i.e. all car owners) be exempted
from car tax?

The tax is being introduced now for only two reasons

(1) the money is needed

(2) the Troika insists

But my car uses the road and my home does not.

Good loser

tayto lover wrote: »

But my car uses the road and my home does not.

And you pay tax on petrol and VRT and VAT on purchase.

Your house consumes services.

Strictly it doesn't matter where the money goes - it's just another tax, a liability.

Compulsory too - like all taxes.

Could say it's needed to pay the increments to the public servants!

tayto lover

Good loser wrote: »

And you pay tax on petrol and VRT and VAT on purchase.

Your house consumes services.

Strictly it doesn't matter where the money goes - it's just another tax, a liability.

Compulsory too - like all taxes.

Could say it's needed to pay the increments to the public servants!

I pay for my services like bins, grass cutting to private companies. The only thing i don't pay yet is water charges, which i will in time as it's a service. I don't think it's needed for the Public Servants though, more like the Banks.

dvpower

tayto lover wrote: »

But my car uses the road and my home does not.

You must get very few visitors.

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

You must get very few visitors.

I have a good alsation, licensed of course

Japer

Good loser wrote: »

Could say it's needed to pay the increments to the public servants!

If public servants were not given a lump sum cash gratuity when they reach pension age, then we would not need to introduce a property tax.

Scofflaw

Japer wrote: »

If public servants were not given a lump sum cash gratuity when they reach pension age, then we would not need to introduce a property tax.

Hmm...do we really need another PS-bashing thread? Why no, I don't believe we do!

Word to the wise.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Victor

avalon68 wrote: »

Only people without an income should be exempt.

Bull. I have a house that is currently worth €300,000 and investments worth just under a million. Given the vagaries of the economy, I made a small loss on the investments last year, so my income was NIL!

I would be exempt from the property tax based on your assertion.

avalon68

Victor wrote: »

Bull. I have a house that is currently worth €300,000 and investments worth just under a million. Given the vagaries of the economy, I made a small loss on the investments last year, so my income was NIL!

I would be exempt from the property tax based on your assertion.

phrased that poorly....i meant those in receipt of unemployment benefits. Those that clearly cannot pay.

hognef

avalon68 wrote: »

phrased that poorly....i meant those in receipt of unemployment benefits. Those that clearly cannot pay.

Wouldn't even their ability to pay also depend on their circumstances? Some unemployed people live in their own, fully repaid, houses.

dvpower

avalon68 wrote: »

phrased that poorly....i meant those in receipt of unemployment benefits. Those that clearly cannot pay.

What other bills should the unemployed be exempt from? Gas bills? Tesco? Motor tax? VAT?

bbam

hognef wrote: »

Wouldn't even their ability to pay also depend on their circumstances? Some unemployed people live in their own, fully repaid, houses.

Please elaborate on this if you could...
SO say I own my €250k gaff (really i don't).. NO payments, not a red cent in the bank as ive paid it all off the mortgage...
I loose my job and we're just about getting by on SW...
Where is my ability to pay another charge??

I'm particularly thinking of my mother.. she lives on her own, ownes her home. She just gets by paying bills, running her car etc.. She has no ability to pay another charge.. As it is the family help her out from time to time..

Lots of people own their properties but at the moment have no or little incomes and little ability to pay...

bullvine

avalon68 wrote: »

See, I dont think they were unlucky. They made a financial decision to buy a house, pay stamp duty etc. Nobody forced them to do that. If they truly cant afford to pay, its unlikely they will have to - but if it means giving up a few luxuries or a holiday etc, then so be it. In the long term a property tax is a good thing for Ireland - we need a sustainable tax income. Its up to voters to demand better local government and services. Maybe the charge could be split or something - 80% to local authority, 20% central coffers.

Yes unlucky is the wrong choice of words. they took the risks, I almost kept my first house in 06 and bought another at the same time but the thought of a 700k mortgage put me straight off even though I would have had 2 houses.

Plenty of people out there who never bought and are in a great position now.

Fairplay to them.

Victor

tayto lover wrote: »

I pay for my services like bins, grass cutting to private companies. The only thing i don't pay yet is water charges, which i will in time as it's a service.

So, who should pay for street lighting, street sweeping and drainage?

hognef

bbam wrote: »

Please elaborate on this if you could...
SO say I own my €250k gaff (really i don't).. NO payments, not a red cent in the bank as ive paid it all off the mortgage...
I loose my job and we're just about getting by on SW...
Where is my ability to pay another charge??

I'm particularly thinking of my mother.. she lives on her own, ownes her home. She just gets by paying bills, running her car etc.. She has no ability to pay another charge.. As it is the family help her out from time to time..

Lots of people own their properties but at the moment have no or little incomes and little ability to pay...

I merely stated that not all unemployed people are in the same situation. Some of them may have a mortgage, some may not. The ones who don't are likely to be in a better position to pay the tax than the ones that do.

If you live in a house that you own outright, you're clearly in a significantly better situation than somebody who is making payments against a mortgage every month. As an unemployed person with no mortgage, you might even be better off than an employed person with a mortgage (depending on the size of the mortgage and the income, of course).

So all I'm saying is that is not as simple as "no unemployed person can afford to pay the property tax" or "all employed people can afford to pay the property tax". It depends on the individual situation.

Does that explain my statement?

tayto lover

Victor wrote: »

So, who should pay for street lighting, street sweeping and drainage?

I have always paid that through my income tax, Motor tax, PRSI, USC and levies and if not then why am i paying all those extra taxes for the last number of years? Don't go telling me now that those funds were "wasted".

not yet

Tea drinker wrote: »

So you saved yourself 50 - 60 grand of rent as well, not such a bad deal then?

Are you taking the piss, you must be.

I have paid 1,100e pm over 7 years= 92,400e plus the original money I put in. so please in tell me in your opinion how it's (not a bad deal)

not yet

Victor wrote: »

So, who should pay for street lighting, street sweeping and drainage?

we already pay enough taxes in some shape or form to cover this. Why not stop crucifing ordinary working people and chase the people with real money.

ardmacha

I have always paid that through my income tax, Motor tax, PRSI, USC and levies and if not then why am i paying all those extra taxes for the last number of years? Don't go telling me now that those funds were "wasted".

5 years ago your contribution was sufficient as everyone was paying in and there were a lot of people paying stamp duty. Now there is nobody paying stamp duty and not everyone is paying in. While the government has substantially cut expenditure on the things it had been spending money on, new expenditure has arisen in paying money out to people. Consequently, the amount you are paying now is not sufficient, as indicated by the deficit.

we already pay enough taxes in some shape or form to cover this.

You don't, there is a large deficit.

not yet

ardmacha wrote: »

5 years ago your contribution was sufficient as everyone was paying in and there were a lot of people paying stamp duty. Now there is nobody paying stamp duty and not everyone is paying in. While the government has substantially cut expenditure on the things it had been spending money on, new expenditure has arisen in paying money out to people. Consequently, the amount you are paying now is not sufficient, as indicated by the deficit.



You don't, there is a large deficit.

I do, If this government chased the fraud in welfare, made even small saving in the PS wage bill, and taxed the rich we would not need to pay an unjust and unfair property tax. Please explain why TDs living in councuil housing are exempt whilst earning 100k from my taxes.

ardmacha

I do, If this government chased the fraud in welfare, made even small saving in the PS wage bill, and taxed the rich we would not need to pay an unjust and unfair property tax

The government has reduced the PS pay bill by almost 20% and has relatively high taxes on the rich already. Taxing their houses will ensure that the rich make a further contribution.

Please explain why TDs living in councuil housing are exempt whilst earning 100k from my taxes.

I cannot help you there, if I had my way this would not happen.

not yet

ardmacha wrote: »

The government has reduced the PS pay bill by almost 20% and has relatively high taxes on the rich already. Taxing their houses will ensure that the rich make a further contribution.



I cannot help you there, if I had my way this would not happen.

How is it fair that a household on generous welfare payment+ rent allowance are exempt, when a couple on average industrial wage get screwed. I am not saying welfare is to high, what I am saying is there are a % of people who make it a lifestyle choice and know how to work the system.

Welease

not yet wrote: »

How is it fair that a household on generous welfare payment+ rent allowance are exempt, when a couple on average industrial wage get screwed. I am not saying welfare is to high, what I am saying is there are a % of people who make it a lifestyle choice and know how to work the system.

That could be said generically of any segment of society.. There are people in each segment who are comfortable and there are those that are struggling.

It doesnt change the fact that we have a large defecit to reign in, and that each and every sector feels that the others should be the focus for change..

quad_red

not yet wrote: »

Please explain why TDs living in councuil housing are exempt whilst earning 100k from my taxes.

Please explain.

murphaph

tayto lover wrote: »

I pay for my services like bins, grass cutting to private companies. The only thing i don't pay yet is water charges, which i will in time as it's a service. I don't think it's needed for the Public Servants though, more like the Banks.

The current account deficit clearly shows that it is needed to pay for public sector pay and welfare (and the tiny bit of capital spend there still is and yes, a small bit will go towards bank recpaitalisations).

Taxes in Ireland aren't ringfenced, they are spent on everything.

not yet

Welease wrote: »

That could be said generically of any segment of society.. There are people in each segment who are comfortable and there are those that are struggling.

It doesnt change the fact that we have a large defecit to reign in, and that each and every sector feels that the others should be the focus for change..

The cuts should be fair, and by fair I am not saying cut 10% of someone on 35k a year who works 40hr a week and 1.5% from welfare. I know we need to bring the defecit down but cutting tax payers on 25-40k will push more people unto the dole.

Welease

not yet wrote: »

The cuts should be fair, and by fair I am not saying cut 10% of someone on 35k a year who works 40hr a week and 1.5% from welfare. I know we need to bring the defecit down but cutting tax payers on 25-40k will push more people unto the dole.

Terms like fair are useless.. It will largely depend on what segment you exist in and your circumstances, and the opinion won't be universal.. That's the problem..

Most peoples perception of fair is to tax someone else.. its nigh on impossible to create a tax system based on that.

average_runner

Victor wrote: »

So, who should pay for street lighting, street sweeping and drainage?

Sorry but our taxes already pay for that.

not yet

Welease wrote: »

Terms like fair are useless.. It will largely depend on what segment you exist in and your circumstances, and the opinion won't be universal.. That's the problem..

Most peoples perception of fair is to tax someone else.. its nigh on impossible to create a tax system based on that.

Whilst I broadly agree with this sentiment I also believe that a person working and earning 35k a year should be better of then a family on welfare, which is not always the case.

average_runner

ardmacha wrote: »

5 years ago your contribution was sufficient as everyone was paying in and there were a lot of people paying stamp duty. Now there is nobody paying stamp duty and not everyone is paying in. While the government has substantially cut expenditure on the things it had been spending money on, new expenditure has arisen in paying money out to people. Consequently, the amount you are paying now is not sufficient, as indicated by the deficit.



You don't, there is a large deficit.

Sorry but our taxes dont cover rubbish collection any more and soon wont cover water. So there should be something left over there.

If there is a deficit you cut the costs, raising taxes wont cut the deficit it will cause a bigger deficit

And why should people that have property have to pay for the services, they arent the only ones that use the lights on the street.

Lets put a 40% tax on rent paid to landlords by tenants for private house/apartment rent, therefore the tenants are contributing to the cost of the services

Welease

not yet wrote: »

Whilst I broadly agree with this sentiment I also believe that a person working and earning 35k a year should be better of then a family on welfare, which is not always the case.

Agreed (but thats only my perception.. those on SW who have a mortgage to pay would likely disagree).. but if the government attempt to touch SW and Pensions then a considerable % of the country will vote them out.. If they attempt to hit middle income earners then again votes go elsewhere.. If they attempt to hit X then X will vote for the other side who pretend they will get the money from elsewhere (but in reality can't).

If people want to have proper discussions on the Irish Economy, then terms like fair have little to no value becuase the meaning is different depending on your situation.

average_runner

Welease wrote: »

Agreed (but thats only my perception.. those on SW who have a mortgage to pay would likely disagree).. but if the government attempt to touch SW and Pensions then a considerable % of the country will vote them out.. If they attempt to hit middle income earners then again votes go elsewhere.. If they attempt to hit X then X will vote for the other side who pretend they will get the money from elsewhere (but in reality can't).

If people want to have proper discussions on the Irish Economy, then terms like fair have little to no value becuase the meaning is different depending on your situation.

Goverment will be voted out anyhow. Labour will get destroy in next election.

Welease

average_runner wrote: »

Sorry but our taxes dont cover rubbish collection any more and soon wont cover water. So there should be something left over there.

If Government income via tax and outgoings via costs were stagnant then yes.. But they are not..

average_runner wrote: »

If there is a deficit you cut the costs, raising taxes wont cut the deficit it will cause a bigger deficit.

One could argue they have cut costs.. They expect you to pay for your own rubbish collection Now people have an issue with that..
It has to be noted that we have considerably less income and more people on SW than before.. so those defecits have to be tackled within those contstraints.

average_runner wrote: »

And why should people that have property have to pay for the services, they arent the only ones that use the lights on the street.

Lets put a 40% tax on rent paid to landlords by tenants for private house/apartment rent, therefore the tenants are contributing to the cost of the services[/QUOTE]

Landlord are free to pass on the costs if they want or absorb it.. It will be a business decision.

not yet

Welease wrote: »

Agreed (but thats only my perception.. those on SW who have a mortgage to pay would likely disagree).. but if the government attempt to touch SW and Pensions then a considerable % of the country will vote them out.. If they attempt to hit middle income earners then again votes go elsewhere.. If they attempt to hit X then X will vote for the other side who pretend they will get the money from elsewhere (but in reality can't).

If people want to have proper discussions on the Irish Economy, then terms like fair have little to no value becuase the meaning is different depending on your situation.

True, But they cannot continue coming to the same well when consulants earn 250k + or college professors earn 200k +. SW seems to have a two tier system. The first is people who struggle on the basic SW payment and the other tier where people seem to be able to ''work'' the system.

Welease

average_runner wrote: »

Goverment will be voted out anyhow. Labour will get destroy in next election.

Maybe.. None of us can predict the future.. The financial situation won't suddenly change though.. more tax needs to be collected and more costs need to be cut..

average_runner

Welease wrote: »

If Government income via tax and outgoings via costs were stagnant then yes.. But they are not..



One could argue they have cut costs.. They expect you to pay for your own rubbish collection Now people have an issue with that..
It has to be noted that we have considerably less income and more people on SW than before.. so those defecits have to be tackled within those contstraints.



Lets put a 40% tax on rent paid to landlords by tenants for private house/apartment rent, therefore the tenants are contributing to the cost of the services

Landlord are free to pass on the costs if they want or absorb it.. It will be a business decision.[/QUOTE]


Not talking about landlords passing the costs. I am talking about the rent a person pays. So if i pay rent of 300 a month, add a tax of % onto that to pay for services.

average_runner

Welease wrote: »

If Government income via tax and outgoings via costs were stagnant then yes.. But they are not..



One could argue they have cut costs.. They expect you to pay for your own rubbish collection Now people have an issue with that..
It has to be noted that we have considerably less income and more people on SW than before.. so those defecits have to be tackled within those contstraints.



Lets put a 40% tax on rent paid to landlords by tenants for private house/apartment rent, therefore the tenants are contributing to the cost of the services

Landlord are free to pass on the costs if they want or absorb it.. It will be a business decision.[/QUOTE]


They cut costs? They are paying IT contractors 1300 a day where they could hire some for 50,000 a year to do the job!!

Welease

not yet wrote: »

True, But they cannot continue coming to the same well when consulants earn 250k + or college professors earn 200k +. SW seems to have a two tier system. The first is people who struggle on the basic SW payment and the other tier where people seem to be able to ''work'' the system.

But the reality is that even if all consultants and college professors worked for free it wouldnt make a noticable dent in the defecit.. There are simply not enough of them.. The costs will still have to be borne by everyone..
(It should also be noted as per Leo V. on Newstalk last week, they are covered by the CPA.)

Where and by how much is the issue..