Property tax rate

avalon68

ncdadam wrote: »

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.

I have no idea what local authorities will do - nor does anyone else until this gets implemented. I see no logical reason why they wouldn't impose a charge. Then again, logic hasn't been a strong point there in recent years. The fact is that Dublin has better services - especially in the public transport area. I lived there through college and only had a car for a small period of time (and it was rarely used in that time). Used the buses for everything else. And the LUAS is a great facility. There are more schools, hospitals, police stations . . . . . Im from down the country originally, and there was a bus through town 3 times a day.....not exactly what I would call good service. I remember when I was young, a neighbor of ours had a heart attack and I remember people loading him into a car and speeding out the road to meet the ambulance because it would take so long for it to get to him. Again, hardly a good service compared to a city. I would hope that this tax is not soley based on property value though as it fluctuates so much - would it not make more sense to introduce some sort of a banding system based on location and square footage.....like city center = band one, then multiply by square footage or something, suburbs band 2 etc. The bands could be adjusted regionally so for instance band one in Limerick would be lower than band one in Dublin.

hognef

avalon68 wrote: »

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.

I never said anything about calculating it from income. I said pay it from your income - before you're able to waste it on the horses, exactly like your current PAYE tax.

But, correctly, it's not wealth if you've spent it all on the horses. But whatever is left (i.e. not spent on the horses or something else), is wealth.

Once again, other countries have wealth taxes, and it's certainly not a "huge issue" for them. Maybe the tax collection system needs to change to support it (which might be difficult enough if everybody believes any change is nearly impossible), but it's certainly doable.

On that note, the fundamental issue with the tax collection system in this country, I think, is the principle of "tax at source", and hence the lack of a central body able to work out a person's total tax liability.

hognef

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

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

Indeed. If anybody should have a right to offset stamp duty against future property taxes, it's the seller, who didn't receive the full amount paid by the buyer.

(Note that I'm not actually suggesting such a right)

hognef

ncdadam wrote: »

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.
.

You wouldn't even need such a law. If you're resident in Ireland, you're already liable to DIRT on any interest earned in bank accounts abroad, so the same would presumably be the case with a wealth tax.

avalon68

ncdadam wrote: »

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.

A small quantity of your money is tied up in the house, the rest is borrowed money. And do you not receive mortgage interest relief on income taxes?

Farmer Pudsey

If the government taught that they could even levy a 1% charge on savings ( like the levy on pension funds) they would have done it already. Cash in banks is liquid it can be moved anywhere. People with cash in banks are savers they are generally shrewd people most of cash in the banks is held by older people.

Straight away you would have the issue of self employed no have to pay is as they could make a case that it was needed to run there business. Alot of older wealthy people would move abroad also there would be no reason why you could not keep the money abroad and not pay this levy.

Then you would have to set a minimum level before you would start the tax you could not tax Johnny Dolehead money in the bank

I agree that long term renters should pay the property tax this would be a useful way to encourage property owners to do long term rental contracts. It would then apply to LA renters. Or allow owners of property who long term rent to include a charge for the property Tax. Contracts of 5 years or longer would be appropiate.

The Tree of Liberty

d4v1d wrote: »

This is not a personal attack, but I find comments like this ridiculous. How can any tax be fair? If someone owns a property and can't afford to pay the tax, let it accumulate on the property until it is either sold and repaid or the tax becomes more than the value of the property and the state takes ownership.

So what if a few people lose their house. In any system we need to accept losses. It's just the way it is. I say to hell with trying to make it fair and try to make it simple instead, everyone pays 0.5%.

Fair just means unfair for someone else.

I honestly believe that if the government bring this in and take another €1000 per head on average from each house that it will be the death blow for the economy.

Their reluctance to address their own profligate spending and tackle the Croke Park agreement as opposed to increasing taxation is disgraceful.

Zamboni

Are there any arguments against a site valuation tax as advocated by Ronan Lyons and Karl Deeter?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/ronan-lyons-a-sitevalue-tax-rewards-those-who-use-land-well-and-punishes-speculators-and-landhoarders-3214089.html

http://www.mortgagebrokers.ie/blog/index.php/2009/10/20/fred-harrison-talks-about-the-property-tax/

Assuming there are no exemptions for anybody and providing an option of deffered payments at sale/death, I cannot see a downside on the face of it. Leaving the rights and wrongs of whether a property tax is justifiable, is this an equitable and implementable proposition?

hognef

Zamboni wrote: »

Are there any arguments against a sittax aluation tax as advocated by Ronan Lyons and Karl Deeter?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/ronan-lyons-a-sitevalue-tax-rewards-those-who-use-land-well-and-punishes-speculators-and-landhoarders-3214089.html

http://www.mortgagebrokers.ie/blog/index.php/2009/10/20/fred-harrison-talks-about-the-property-tax/

Assuming there are no exemptions for anybody and providing an option of deffered payments at sale/death, I cannot see a downside on the face of it. Leaving the rights and wrongs of whether a property tax is justifiable, is this an equitable and implementable proposition?

Assuming a flat percentage in either scenario, a site-value tax (SVT) would mean a much greater disparity between city and country, compared to a full-value tax (FVT).

Also assuming the value of a particular building in the country is equal to the value of a similar building in the city, any difference in market value will be down to the site value (note: site value takes into account things like location, services, etc.).

Let's say an average country property is worth 150k and an average city property is worth 300k, and the value of either house by itself (without the site) is 120k. In other words, the sites are worth 30k and 180k, respectively.

Under a FVT regime, the tax on the city property would be twice that of the country property (300/150).

Under a SVT regime, the tax on the city property would be 6 times that of the country property (180/30).

Now, which one is most fair and equitable?