Property tax rate

tayto lover

Is anyone foolish enough to believe that with the Property Tax services will actually improve?

avalon68

murphaph wrote: »

I would say the tax take is far short of paying the wages required to deliver sub-par services. I believe that if wages were seriously looked at that we could deliver the current (albeit sub-par) services for less. Heck, the fact that new entrants to the PS start on less money sort of proves it, and this was sanctioned by the unions themselves.

I do believe that we would need to increase overall tax take a bit to deliver continental European levels of service, but we don't have those levels at present anyway.

I 100% agree with this - I think if this government grew a pair then Ireland could have fantastic services. Wages are a huge problem and need to be tackled, but the narrow tax net is also a huge problem that needs tackling. Instead of continuously calling for taxing the rich (who already pay most of the taxes!), we need to have more people pay something. A little bit of tax from a lot of people will net far more than a lot of tax from a few people. This can in part be achieved through a property tax, but really requires adjustment of the tax bands. For example, I am in the states at the moment, and even graduate students on a fairly small stipend are taxed. Everyone is contributing something.

ncdadam

avalon68 wrote: »

So your solution is to punish the people who saved their money and didnt buy properties they couldnt afford? Nice...... Should people who dont drive also pay motor tax? It doesnt matter a damn if someone is in negative equity - it does not affect their ability to pay, only their willingness.

Surely people with large savings are paying DIRT?
Is that not 'punishment?'

ardmacha

I very much doubt whether local authorities in Ireland have an optimal deployment of resources and staff, whether or not those staff are overpaid. I'd say that if the least efficient local authority division was brought up to the level of the most efficient one then significant savings would result without welshing on any agreements.

avalon68

ncdadam wrote: »

Surely people with large savings are paying DIRT?
Is that not 'punishment?'

Everyone with savings pays this tax on the interest earned. A wealth tax on savings would effectively punish me for saving rather than going out and blowing my cash on a depreciating asset like an expensive car for example. It would punish me for saving up for items rather than taking on debt to buy things.

ncdadam

avalon68 wrote: »

Everyone with savings pays this tax on the interest earned. A wealth tax on savings would effectively punish me for saving rather than going out and blowing my cash on a depreciating asset like an expensive car for example. It would punish me for saving up for items rather than taking on debt to buy things.

Hopefully they will put a new tax on savings over a certain level, it might encourage people to start spending again in the economy and thereby create some jobs, reducing the welfare budget.
Then again, people might move their money out of the country, but a europe wide or even worldwide savings tax might stop this.

avalon68

ncdadam wrote: »

Hopefully they will put a new tax on savings over a certain level, it might encourage people to start spending again in the economy and thereby create some jobs, reducing the welfare budget.
Then again, people might move their money out of the country, but a europe wide or even worldwide savings tax might stop this.

But what right have they to get people to spend their money if they don't want to? If a tax like this came in I would just move my money elsewhere. I have never taken a loan in my life - I have saved any extra money since I started earning. I rent, drive a crappy car etc. I intend to accumulate a sizable deposit for when I eventually decide to buy a house, so that I don't require a huge soul crushing mortgage. But basically, from what is proposed here, if I bought an overpriced house and was now in huge negative equity......I wouldn't have to pay a wealth tax! My bad, should have been living it up all this time....

ncdadam

avalon68 wrote: »

But what right have they to get people to spend their money if they don't want to? If a tax like this came in I would just move my money elsewhere. I have never taken a loan in my life - I have saved any extra money since I started earning. I rent, drive a crappy car etc. I intend to accumulate a sizable deposit for when I eventually decide to buy a house, so that I don't require a huge soul crushing mortgage. But basically, from what is proposed here, if I bought an overpriced house and was now in huge negative equity......I wouldn't have to pay a wealth tax! My bad, should have been living it up all this time....

Well, your money is just as much if not more of an asset than a house in negative equity.
Why shouldn't it be taxed?
Apparently there's around €140 billion in savings here, a 10% tax on that would raise €14 billion, almost wiping out our deficit in one go.
I'd make everyone living in the country liable for it, you want to stay here, you gotta pay the price.
If not, everyone knows where the airport is!

ardmacha

Apparently there's around €140 billion in savings here, a 10% tax on that would raise €14 billion, almost wiping out our deficit in one go

Quite apart from the fact that houses are less easily moved than savings your scheme would eliminate all savings in 10 years. Do you read this stuff before you post it?

avalon68

ncdadam wrote: »

Well, your money is just as much if not more of an asset than a house in negative equity.
Why shouldn't it be taxed?
Apparently there's around €140 billion in savings here, a 10% tax on that would raise €14 billion, almost wiping out our deficit in one go.
I'd make everyone living in the country liable for it, you want to stay here, you gotta pay the price.
If not, everyone knows where the airport is!

Ahhhh.....because to already taxed when I earn it.....you know, with income tax!

ncdadam

ardmacha wrote: »

Quite apart from the fact that houses are less easily moved than savings your scheme would eliminate all savings in 10 years. Do you read this stuff before you post it?

Didn't say it would be forever, 3 years or so would do the trick.

ncdadam

avalon68 wrote: »

Ahhhh.....because to already taxed when I earn it.....you know, with income tax!

No more than people who pay income tax and then take out a mortgage on a house which you seem happy enough to tax.

death1234567

ncdadam wrote: »

Apparently there's around €140 billion in savings here, a 10% tax on that would raise €14 billion, almost wiping out our deficit in one go.

That's probably the most stupid idea I have ever heard. Its like something you'd expect Joe Higgins to come out with but even he's not that thick.

ncdadam

death1234567 wrote: »

That's probably the most stupid idea I have ever heard. Its like something you'd expect Joe Higgins to come out with but even he's not that thick.

Charming!

avalon68

ncdadam wrote: »

No more than people who pay income tax and then take out a mortgage on a house which you seem happy enough to tax.

Think about that for a minute......how does one pay income tax on a large chunk of unearned money from a bank?

ncdadam

avalon68 wrote: »

Think about that for a minute......how does one pay income tax on a large chunk of unearned money from a bank?

A property tax.
A tax is a tax, call it what you want, it all comes out of the same place i.e. my pocket.

death1234567

ncdadam wrote: »

Charming!

Your idea is to introduce a 3 year, 10% tax on bank deposits and you actually think that this would work/is feasbile/is not the most moronic idea of all time???

1. I have €XXX in savings at the bank earning ~3% interest (- 28% DIRT)
2. Government announce 3 year 10% per annum tax on all savings.
3. I go to the bank and withdraw my money.
4. I now have €XXX in cash that can't be taxed.
5. There's a run on the banks because I'm not the only person in the country with more than one brain cell.

avalon68

ncdadam wrote: »

Jesus, you guys are happy enough to tax the roof over my head (an asset) but not so keen on taxing your cash (an asset).
Funny that, isn't it?

It's not at all funny. My cash sits in a bank to which I pay fees. The government takes dirt tax. Your house sits on a plot of land, to which services are provided. I assume a public road leads there, electricity lines run in there, water/ sewage lines, post man calls, phone lines etc. all of these things, even though you pay some bills, cost money to maintain the infrastructure. When and if I buy a house, I have no problems paying a property tax. I live in the states now and pay part of my landlords property tax. In fact I have always paid a property tax since living here, just as a renter.

ncdadam

avalon68 wrote: »

It's not at all funny. My cash sits in a bank to which I pay fees. The government takes dirt tax. Your house sits on a plot of land, to which services are provided. I assume a public road leads there, electricity lines run in there, water/ sewage lines, post man calls, phone lines etc. all of these things, even though you pay some bills, cost money to maintain the infrastructure. When and if I buy a house, I have no problems paying a property tax. I live in the states now and pay part of my landlords property tax. In fact I have always paid a property tax since living here, just as a renter.

But sure how were we maintaining the infrastructure up to now?
Through central taxation, that's how.
Another point you raise there is valid, why are renters and people who live in rented local authority exempt from this?
BTW, I'm only throwing ideas around here, it is a discussion forum after all.

Black Swan

MOD WARNING:
Please be advised that some of the posts on this thread have gotten a bit "too personal," which violates our charter. Please focus on making contributions to the topic, and not each other.

avalon68

ncdadam wrote: »

But sure how were we maintaining the infrastructure up to now?
Through central taxation, that's how.
Another point you raise there is valid, why are renters and people who live in rented local authority exempt from this?
BTW, I'm only throwing ideas around here, it is a discussion forum after all.

We aren't.....driven over any crater sized potholes recently? I'm barely in the country and I know I have! And we are borrowing to maintain the substandard services we currently have, central taxation isn't covering it. I don't think renters will be exempt....every house will have a tax on it, I'm pretty sure landlords will end up passing it indirectly to tenants, so either way the house tax will be paid. Don't know how it would work for local authority housing, but I don't see why they should be exempt, unless of course they truly cannot pay ie on the dole

tayto lover

avalon68 wrote: »

It's not at all funny. My cash sits in a bank to which I pay fees. The government takes dirt tax. Your house sits on a plot of land, to which services are provided. I assume a public road leads there, electricity lines run in there, water/ sewage lines, post man calls, phone lines etc. all of these things, even though you pay some bills, cost money to maintain the infrastructure. When and if I buy a house, I have no problems paying a property tax. I live in the states now and pay part of my landlords property tax. In fact I have always paid a property tax since living here, just as a renter.

What have ESB lines to do with the LA?
Sewage in our area was put down in 1910 afaik, it must be well paid for by now. When I moved in the sewage was blocked down the street and when we rang the LA we were told it was a private matter.
The postman? What am i putting stamps on letters for?
The roads are well paid for with regards to motor tax, tolls and plenty of fines.
We paid 11k Stamp Duty when we bought the house too.

I agree that if owners have to pay then renters and LA tenants should pay too.

ncdadam

avalon68 wrote: »

We aren't.....driven over any crater sized potholes recently? I'm barely in the country and I know I have! And we are borrowing to maintain the substandard services we currently have, central taxation isn't covering it. I don't think renters will be exempt....every house will have a tax on it, I'm pretty sure landlords will end up passing it indirectly to tenants, so either way the house tax will be paid. Don't know how it would work for local authority housing, but I don't see why they should be exempt, unless of course they truly cannot pay ie on the dole

Ok, but you'd be of the opinion that council tenants should pay unless they truly cannot afford to pay, yes?
Should this be the same for a homeowner who truly cannot afford to pay?

Good loser

ncdadam wrote: »

A property tax.
A tax is a tax, call it what you want, it all comes out of the same place i.e. my pocket.

With your own house you're saving on rent. That is a notional income.

Plus people with houses can have visitors who don't have to pay hotels or guesthouses and can in turn visit these.

Plus their family and extended family can live rent free.

Plus lodgers can be taken in.

Plus rooms can be rented out.

In many ways a house can make money - at least there is a potential not available to those without.

avalon68

tayto lover wrote: »

What have ESB lines to do with the LA?
Sewage in our area was put down in 1910 afaik, it must be well paid for by now. When I moved in the sewage was blocked down the street and when we rang the LA we were told it was a private matter.
The postman? What am i putting stamps on letters for?
The roads are well paid for with regards to motor tax, tolls and plenty of fines.
We paid 11k Stamp Duty when we bought the house too.

I agree that if owners have to pay then renters and LA tenants should pay too.

Must be impressive sewage pipes if they need no maintenance since 1910. You must send an extraordinary amount of mail to support your local post office! My point is that people avail of all kinds of local services....roads, schools, hospitals, fire services, police. These need to be funded. Perhaps if it seemed more apparent that this money would go into services and not just to over inflated wages then it would be a far easier tax to swallow. Stamp duty is irrelevant, that was a cost you agreed to on purchasing your house. If you objected to paying it then you didn't need to buy the house.

avalon68

ncdadam wrote: »

Ok, but you'd be of the opinion that council tenants should pay unless they truly cannot afford to pay, yes?
Should this be the same for a homeowner who truly cannot afford to pay?

The homeowner can sell their house. The local authority renter doesn't own the property and can't sell it.

ncdadam

Good loser wrote: »

With your own house you're saving on rent. That is a notional income.

Plus people with houses can have visitors who don't have to pay hotels or guesthouses and can in turn visit these.

Plus their family and extended family can live rent free.

Plus lodgers can be taken in.

Plus rooms can be rented out.

In many ways a house can make money - at least there is a potential not available to those without.

It's 'notional' income ok and that's all it is, notional.

Most people still have a mortgage to pay. Is that a 'notional' mortgage? No, it's a real mortgage that has to be paid every month.

avalon68

ncdadam wrote: »

It's 'notional' income ok and that's all it is, notional.

Most people still have a mortgage to pay. Is that a 'notional' mortgage? No, it's a real mortgage that has to be paid every month.

But it's a commitment voluntarily entered into. You can always sell. If in negative equity you would take a loss, akin to someone making a bad investment in stocks or whatever. Or depending on the area, you could rent it out, or as someone suggested - rent out a room to get some extra cash.

tayto lover

Good loser wrote: »

With your own house you're saving on rent. That is a notional income.

Plus people with houses can have visitors who don't have to pay hotels or guesthouses and can in turn visit these.

Plus their family and extended family can live rent free.

Plus lodgers can be taken in.

Plus rooms can be rented out.

In many ways a house can make money - at least there is a potential not available to those without.

You must have some size of a house

Good loser

avalon68 wrote: »

Must be impressive sewage pipes if they need no maintenance since 1910. You must send an extraordinary amount of mail to support your local post office! My point is that people avail of all kinds of local services....roads, schools, hospitals, fire services, police. These need to be funded. Perhaps if it seemed more apparent that this money would go into services and not just to over inflated wages then it would be a far easier tax to swallow. Stamp duty is irrelevant, that was a cost you agreed to on purchasing your house. If you objected to paying it then you didn't need to buy the house.

Plus to the purchaser it is the total cost including stamp duty that the purchaser must make his/her purchasing decision on.

If a house including stamp duty costs €200,000 it doesn't matter to the purchaser whether the stamp duty is 5k, 10k, 20k or 50k. It matters a lot to the seller.

The builders/developers would have priced their houses to what the demand was, so effectively the stamp duty came out of their profits rather than from the buyers.

ncdadam

avalon68 wrote: »

But it's a commitment voluntarily entered into. You can always sell. If in negative equity you would take a loss, akin to someone making a bad investment in stocks or whatever. Or depending on the area, you could rent it out, or as someone suggested - rent out a room to get some extra cash.

You would also be liable for tax on rental income then.

ncdadam

Good loser wrote: »

Plus to the purchaser it is the total cost including stamp duty that the purchaser must make his/her purchasing decision on.

If a house including stamp duty costs €200,000 it doesn't matter to the purchaser whether the stamp duty is 5k, 10k, 20k or 50k.

The builders/developers would have priced their houses to what the demand was, so effectively the stamp duty came out of their profits rather than from the buyers.

What?
As MacEnroe used to say "You cannot be serious!"
Stamp duty is paid by the purchaser.

avalon68

ncdadam wrote: »

You would also be liable for tax on rental income then.

I guess it depends on how much rent you charge, but even after tax, you would still be gaining additional income.

Good loser

ncdadam wrote: »

What?
As MacEnroe used to say "You cannot be serious!"
Stamp duty is paid by the purchaser.

Tis serious I am.

What's your response to line 2 in the post?

Farmer Pudsey

Good loser wrote: »

Plus to the purchaser it is the total cost including stamp duty that the purchaser must make his/her purchasing decision on.

If a house including stamp duty costs €200,000 it doesn't matter to the purchaser whether the stamp duty is 5k, 10k, 20k or 50k. It matters a lot to the seller.

The builders/developers would have priced their houses to what the demand was, so effectively the stamp duty came out of their profits rather than from the buyers.

Loser is right here ever time during the boom that the government reduced stamp duties builders and sellers benfited buy the same same amount. Auctioneers use to find out from mortgage agents how much a buyer had approved and drive the house price to that

murphaph

ncdadam wrote: »

Well, your money is just as much if not more of an asset than a house in negative equity.
Why shouldn't it be taxed?
Apparently there's around €140 billion in savings here, a 10% tax on that would raise €14 billion, almost wiping out our deficit in one go.
I'd make everyone living in the country liable for it, you want to stay here, you gotta pay the price.
If not, everyone knows where the airport is!

Huh?

So if I have 100 mil in the bank you'd take 10% off me and leave me with 90 mil and the following year take 10% leaving me with 81 mil and the following year take 8.1 mil off me leaving me with 72.9 mil .... leaving me with 0.

I think anyone who could leave would be on the first plane out to be honest, not just the super wealthy either. With a tax like that you couldn't really afford not to leave. The only people remaining would be on welfare, so best of luck with that plan.

There is no magic bullet to our peoblems. No simple tax group x and everything will go away type solutions. The property tax is part of what is required to stabilise Ireland's finances and it should NEVER be abolished again by some scumbag political party in a vain (but, owing to the stupidity of the Irish electorate, successful!!) attempt to buy an election.

Coupled to this tax, we need other changes to bring all earners into the income tax system, whilst at the same time overhauling welfare to make sure it can never be (or at least very rarely be) more attractive to remain on welfare than take even a job on minimum wage.

To get Ireland functioning properly again ALL sections of society must take some pain. We cannot afford to shelter particular groups from the harsh reality of our deficit.

AlekSmart

murphaph wrote: »

Huh?

There is no magic bullet to our peoblems. No simple tax group x and everything will go away type solutions.

Coupled to this tax, we need other changes to bring all earners into the income tax system, whilst at the same time overhauling welfare to make sure it can never be (or at least very rarely be) more attractive to remain on welfare than take even a job on minimum wage.

To get Ireland functioning properly again ALL sections of society must take some pain. We cannot afford to shelter particular groups from the harsh reality of our deficit.

But that is what makes us unique Murphaph,we Irish love and protect our young,elderly,infirm,illiterate,unemployable to a far greater degree than them oul dull boring Europeans,who just don't know how to have "The Craic".

Just look at the way in which the imperceptible and inevitable review of the Free Travel Scheme is being portrayed.....

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/oaps-facing-5-travel-charge-and-electricity-cutbacks-3229651.html

Take a moment to savour the photo as well as taking in the OAP focus of the otherwise factual article which rather spectacularly fails to mention how of the 726,000 Free Travel Pass holders,only 346,769 are of Pensionable Age.

Equally the media focus appears to portray only the Free Travel element as worth commenting upon despite it accounting for c.€75,000,000 of a total Supplementary Welfare spend of c.€711,000,000 in 2011.

None of this would raise an eyebrow if Ireland inc was actually in a position to develop,market and profit from anthing tangible,but thank's to several decades of Government policies we adopted a "House that Jack Built" (Only to flog it on to Jill for twice the original cost) policy.

It was doomed from the start,which many folks knew and attempted to distance themselves from,but were lost in the lemming like rush for the cliff.

Ochón ochón sez I,ceard a dheinimid feasta gan airgead (excuse the lack of fadá's)

hognef

ncdadam wrote: »

hognef wrote: »

Why do people keep stamping their feet saying "I absolutely won't pay such and such"? Ultimately, if such and such is introduced, you will pay. It won't be optional.

Bank accounts outside the country would be liable for the tax, just the same as domestic accounts. This is already the case for DIRT, so there's no additional problem there.

As to "calculating" it - that's easy. Take the balance at a particular point in time, say 31st December. People's bank balances don't fluctuate massively throughout the year, or to put it like this: If it does, then that might be because they've invested in something, say a car or shares, both of which would be part of the tax base anyway. Again, this is exactly how it's already done elsewhere.

The main problem with this approach is that Revenue currently has no way to match a bank account, car, boat, share holding or other wealth to an individual. That would obviously need to be addressed.

Which bank account will they take it from? I have 4 bank accounts and my wife has 2, our house is in joint names.

The exact method would obviously need to be worked out, but I don't see that as a major issue. For most people with some sort of income, it could come out of that. Or Revenue could issue a bill.

steve9859

ncdadam wrote: »

You would also be liable for tax on rental income then.

It would have to be a hell of a good spare room to charge enough rent that it is taxable....

hognef

avalon68 wrote: »

hognef wrote: »

Why do people keep stamping their feet saying "I absolutely won't pay such and such"? Ultimately, if such and such is introduced, you will pay. It won't be optional.

As to "calculating" it - that's easy. Take the balance at a particular point in time, say 31st December. People's bank balances don't fluctuate massively throughout the year, or to put it like this: If it does, then that might be because they've invested in something, say a car or shares, both of which would be part of the tax base anyway. Again, this is exactly how it's already done elsewhere.

It would be quite optional - I could keep it under my mattress......or simply choose to not return to Ireland, which is probably what I would do if such a tax came to be.

If you choose to hide it under your mattress, fair enough. But, keep in mind that the wealth tax most likely would be smaller than the deposit interest, so that'd mean a net loss to you.

Alternatively, if such a tax would make you emigrate, then keep in mind that you might get hit for a similar tax in your new homeland. Also, why don't you already live in a lower-tax jurisdiction? Or if you already do, then why so concerned about a tax that wouldn't affect you anyway?

avalon68

hognef wrote: »

The exact method would obviously need to be worked out, but I don't see that as a major issue. For most people with some sort of income, it could come out of that. Or Revenue could issue a bill.

I think it would be a huge issue and would never work. You can't calculate it from income.....what if I earn 100000 and lose it all on the ponies......I don't have it anymore.....so it's not wealth. And as someone else mentioned, there would be a run on the banks if something like this came in, and rightly so imo. The thing with a property tax is you can't pack up your house and leave with it. It's a latively easy tax to implement which is why it exists in most countries in some form.

avalon68

hognef wrote: »

If you choose to hide it under your mattress, fair enough. But, keep in mind that the wealth tax most likely would be smaller than the deposit interest, so that'd mean a net loss to you.

Alternatively, if such a tax would make you emigrate, then keep in mind that you might get hit for a similar tax in your new homeland. Also, why don't you already live in a lower-tax jurisdiction? Or if you already do, then why so concerned about a tax that wouldn't affect you anyway?

I already live abroad thanks......but fully intend on coming home in the future, so it does affect me. The crux of this is that it has been proposed on here that I should pay a wealth tax on mysavings, while someone in negative equity would not be paying as they are in negative equity......nonsense. I would also be paying a property tax indirectly if renting as you can be sure landlords will be passing it on to tenants.

ncdadam

murphaph wrote: »

Huh?

So if I have 100 mil in the bank you'd take 10% off me and leave me with 90 mil and the following year take 10% leaving me with 81 mil and the following year take 8.1 mil off me leaving me with 72.9 mil .... leaving me with 0.

I think anyone who could leave would be on the first plane out to be honest, not just the super wealthy either. With a tax like that you couldn't really afford not to leave. The only people remaining would be on welfare, so best of luck with that plan.

There is no magic bullet to our peoblems. No simple tax group x and everything will go away type solutions. The property tax is part of what is required to stabilise Ireland's finances and it should NEVER be abolished again by some scumbag political party in a vain (but, owing to the stupidity of the Irish electorate, successful!!) attempt to buy an election.

Coupled to this tax, we need other changes to bring all earners into the income tax system, whilst at the same time overhauling welfare to make sure it can never be (or at least very rarely be) more attractive to remain on welfare than take even a job on minimum wage.

To get Ireland functioning properly again ALL sections of society must take some pain. We cannot afford to shelter particular groups from the harsh reality of our deficit.

All sections except those that can afford to hoard cash away in savings, eh?

I did say it would be for maybe 3 years that's all.
And if people are that loyal to our country that they'd pack up and go well good luck to them, don't come back.
The amount of savings in Ireland is double what you would expect for an economy our size, people simply aren't spending and that's killing our domestic economy. A little encouragement to spend might do no harm.
If a tax on the actual money deposited wouldn't work, then increase the DIRT to 80 or 90% to encourage people to spend.

What we need in this country is the unemployment rate to drop drastically and to that end the government have failed miserably.
No incentives, no breaks for employers and no reason for people on the dole to take up employment.

ncdadam

steve9859 wrote: »

It would have to be a hell of a good spare room to charge enough rent that it is taxable....

The poster said someone could 'sell their house or rent it out'. Post 179.
I wasn't referring to renting out a room.

avalon68

ncdadam wrote: »

All sections except those that can afford to hoard cash away in savings, eh?

I did say it would be for maybe 3 years that's all.
And if people are that loyal to our country that they'd pack up and go well good luck to them, don't come back.

So who exactly would be Paying taxes then? These very people that have savings are very likely the people that are carrying the tax system. Isn't it like 10% of people paying 90% tax? What would you propose if that 10% or even a proportion of them pack up and leave?

And not running out buying an overpriced house that I couldn't afford, is NOT hoarding. It's called being financially prudent.

ncdadam

avalon68 wrote: »

I already live abroad thanks......but fully intend on coming home in the future, so it does affect me. The crux of this is that it has been proposed on here that I should pay a wealth tax on mysavings, while someone in negative equity would not be paying as they are in negative equity......nonsense. I would also be paying a property tax indirectly if renting as you can be sure landlords will be passing it on to tenants.

So your really saying that if someone has €300,000 in savings (an asset) they shouldn't be taxed on that asset but if someone bought a house for €300,000 and are in negative equity to the tune of €150,000 (making their asset worth €150,000) they should be taxed on their asset.
Maybe a law should be passed before they tax your savings making it illegal to move large amounts of money in order to avoid paying tax on same.

People are saying that asset's should be taxed.
Cash is an asset as much as a property is an asset.

It's easy for you to say 'tax peoples homes' as you don't live here and it won't effect you.

avalon68

ncdadam wrote: »

So your really saying that if someone has €300,000 in savings (an asset) they shouldn't be taxed on that asset but if someone bought a house for €300,000 and are in negative equity to the tune of €150,000 (making their asset worth €150,000) they should be taxed on their asset.
Maybe a law should be passed before they tax your savings making it illegal to move large amounts of money in order to avoid paying tax on same.

People are saying that asset's should be taxed.
Cash is an asset as much as a property is an asset.

It's easy for you to say 'tax peoples homes' as you don't live here and it won't effect you.

I really don't understand why it's so difficult to understand that any cash in savings has already been subjected to tax when it was earned, and is subject to dirt tax while it sits in the bank. Cash doesn't " use any services", and I already pay bank fees. When I buy a property I will be more than happy to pay a tax on it, but my savings have already been taxed. And in all honesty - do you really think a government that can't even make the Quinn's move back cash and assets that they admit to moving beyond the reach of the courts illegally would ever be capable of keeping track of people moving money between countries, gifting money to children etc? As for a law to prevent people accessing and moving their cash??? Wtf? Ridiculous

ncdadam

avalon68 wrote: »

I really don't understand why it's so difficult to understand that any cash in savings has already been subjected to tax when it was earned, and is subject to dirt tax while it sits in the bank. Cash doesn't " use any services", and I already pay bank fees. When I buy a property I will be more than happy to pay a tax on it, but my savings have already been taxed. And in all honesty - do you really think a government that can't even make the Quinn's move back cash and assets that they admit to moving beyond the reach of the courts illegally would ever be capable of keeping track of people moving money between countries, gifting money to children etc? As for a law to prevent people accessing and moving their cash??? Wtf? Ridiculous

If you own a house, it effectively means your cash is tied up in that house.
You are paying off a mortgage with cash that has been taxed when it was earned so a property tax is really a second tax on the same money.

Look, the only reason this tax is being brought in is because 1. the troika told them to do it and 2. money is being taken from central exchequer funds to bail out the losses of private business and has to be replaced from somewhere.

I don't agree with a property tax because it is only levied on one section of society and as it is people in Dublin will be hammered more than people from outside Dublin. It discriminates on both levels.
If they brought in a rates system that everyone paid, renters and LA tenants included equally, I'd have no problem paying it.
Equally, when they bring in water rates I will have no problem paying it as long as the above mentioned are liable to pay it too.
We hear so much about fairness in our society, I don't see much fairness in what's proposed.....

avalon68

ncdadam wrote: »

I don't agree with a property tax because it is only levied on one section of society and as it is people in Dublin will be hammered more than people from outside Dublin. It discriminates on both levels.

How is it leveled at one section of society - every house in the country will have a tax due on it - whether you own or rent, a tax will be paid on that house. Landlords may choose to offset the cost by increasing rent - but the tax will still be paid. People in Dublin have access to infinitely more facilities than people outside of Dublin, hence the increased cost of living there.

ncdadam

avalon68 wrote: »

How is it leveled at one section of society - every house in the country will have a tax due on it - whether you own or rent, a tax will be paid on that house. Landlords may choose to offset the cost by increasing rent - but the tax will still be paid.
People in Dublin have access to infinitely more facilities than people outside of Dublin, hence the increased cost of living there.

Are you telling me that LA's will increase the rent their tenants pay?
A lot of private rented houses are on the RAS schemes with the LA's too and I can tell you for a fact that the LA's are reducing rents and won't be increasing them.

Regarding your second point there I would say that providing services in Dublin would be cheaper than outside of Dublin due to economies of scale.