[Article] Sunday Indo 27-01-2013 Revealed: huge inequity in rural/city property tax

Rereggie Perrin

cookie1977 wrote: »

No, they asked for 500,000. If they wanted 505,000 and I agreed then I'd have payed €510,050.00. They'd have gotten their 505,000. Are you really holding on to this position?

Did you not read the post you quoted? Why did the second seller get 50k less for his house if it was the buyer who was paying the tax?

If you can answer that, then maybe we will get somewhere.

cookie1977

Rereggie Perrin wrote: »

Did you not read the post you quoted? Why did the second seller get 50k less for his house if it was the buyer who was paying the tax?

If you can answer that, then maybe we will get somewhere.

You're confused? I gave up of any hope a few posts back!

Rereggie Perrin

cookie1977 wrote: »

You're confused? I gave up of any hope a few posts back!

Ok, so you concede the argument? If you can't explain why the second selller gets less money than the first seller, you've nowhere to go.

cookie1977

Rereggie Perrin wrote: »

Ok, so you concede the argument? If you can't explain why the second selller gets less money than the first seller, you've nowhere to go.

You're a member of the human race, stop embarassing the rest of us.

Rereggie Perrin

cookie1977 wrote: »

You're a member of the human race, stop embarassing the rest of us.

Ok, I'll take that as you admitting you are wrong. You could be more gracious about it though.

Lemming

smccarrick wrote: »

The idea behind this tax is that its supposed to be how the local authorities/county councils fund themselves going forward- and they have some leeway with this- they can vary it + or - 25% from the baselines given by the Revenue Commissioners. However, at the end of the day- its going into a central purse- so I can't say that my tax is not going to fund the streetlight outside my door- or local amenities- its going into an anonymous bucket for the benefit of god knows who, god knows where.

Here in the UK, the local councils have authority to raise their own funding (partially, a lot of spending still comes from government). Whilst I'm unsure of how the categorisation of property is carried out - all houses fall under several categories, from A being the cheapest to H the most expensive. Charges per-annum will vary from council to council. I get a letter every year showing a breakdown of where the council tax has gone for that year.

That tax is taken directly by the council, not the government tax man, although I have no idea of how much additional funding has been provided by the government from the general tax take.

tenton wrote: »

If decentralisation had happened the Dublin people there would be less people in Dublin, property prices would be lower there due to less demand, there would be less traffic, pollution and congestion in Dublin and everyone would be better off.

I had written a rant, but I'll simplify it all:

If you actually believe that decentralisation would have worked as was announced, then I have a great once-in-a-lifetime offer going on London bridge for you, and only you, today.

digzy

I'm not saying you're wrong reg perrin. I appreciate the spin you're putting on the thing and i accept your argument.

However, consider that when the buyer bids 500k for the house, the seller decides whether they'll accept it. they dont know the category of purchaser-first time buyer/speculator-all they care about is the amt they've been bid. A seller doesn't think 'the first time buyer is willing to pay 500k for my house' or the 'trader-upper is willing to pay 550k for my house but i'll only get 500k'.

I'd draw parallels with the pension business. The way I see it I could spend 59 quid on something or put 100 into my pension. The pension brokers like to spin it that for every 59 quid you put in the taxman is putting in 41. once again, one could say they're not incorrect in this but when it's your own money it's hard to appreciate their point of view.

mitosis

Let the tax raised be ring fenced for the area it was raised in - only fair way.
If the folk in Leitrim and Donegal want the revenue based on the value of their big rural house, let them find another way (other than Dublin tax-payers) of paying for the road out to it, the water/sewage/policing/healthcare etc.

As it is, 70+% of ALL taxes raised in the country are raised in Dublin. One quarter of the population provides the revenue for three quarters of all services in the state. Is that equality?

Rereggie Perrin

digzy wrote: »

I'm not saying you're wrong reg perrin. I appreciate the spin you're putting on the thing and i accept your argument.

However, consider that when the buyer bids 500k for the house, the seller decides whether they'll accept it. they dont know the category of purchaser-first time buyer/speculator-all they care about is the amt they've been bid. A seller doesn't think 'the first time buyer is willing to pay 500k for my house' or the 'trader-upper is willing to pay 550k for my house but i'll only get 500k'.

Right, but it's the market that determines the value of the house - not an individual buyer or seller. When a seller is determining his asking price, he is basing it on what the market will bear (if he has a hope of selling it!), and what the market will bear is ultimately be determined by how much a buyer can borrow. So he doesn't need to know or care what type of buyer is making the bids: the bids of the buyers are determined by how much they can borrow, and the value of the house is decided by the market.

The confusion arises I guess because it is the buyer who writes the cheque to the government. If it was the seller writing the cheque, it would be pretty obvious whose pocket the money is coming out of.

cookie1977

Rereggie Perrin wrote: »

Right, but it's the market that determines the value of the house - not an individual buyer or seller. When a seller is determining his asking price, he is basing it on what the market will bear (if he has a hope of selling it!), and what the market will bear is ultimately be determined by how much a buyer can borrow. So he doesn't need to know or care what type of buyer is making the bids: the bids of the buyers are determined by how much they can borrow, and the value of the house is decided by the market.

The confusion arises I guess because it is the buyer who writes the cheque to the government. If it was the seller writing the cheque, it would be pretty obvious whose pocket the money is coming out of.

So you're saying it's the buyer who pays then. And as I said in my original post, you are being pedantic.

Rereggie Perrin

cookie1977 wrote: »

So you're saying it's the buyer who pays then. And as I said in my original post, you are being pedantic.

I said the buyer writes the cheque. Can you explain why seller two gets 50k less for his house if it is the buyer who is paying the tax?

Nope? Pipe down then.

cookie1977

Your example is crude and flavoured to support your flawed arguement.

Rereggie Perrin

cookie1977 wrote: »

Your example is crude and flavoured to support your flawed arguement.

Can you explain how? Would you like to use different numbers? Seriously, I think you are just winding us up at this point - you have no counter-argument.

Balmed Out

mitosis wrote: »

Let the tax raised be ring fenced for the area it was raised in - only fair way.
If the folk in Leitrim and Donegal want the revenue based on the value of their big rural house, let them find another way (other than Dublin tax-payers) of paying for the road out to it, the water/sewage/policing/healthcare etc.

As it is, 70+% of ALL taxes raised in the country are raised in Dublin. One quarter of the population provides the revenue for three quarters of all services in the state. Is that equality?

source????
Any figures I have ever come across would be substantially less then that.

Taxes in Ireland are recorded from wherever they are paid. That means that a lot of companies which operate throughout the country will have wages and corporation tax etc paid from the head office which will more often then not be Dublin. For instance there's nearly twice the amount of PAYE paid in Dublin then in Cork but 6 or 7 times the amount of corporation tax paid in Dublin in comparison even though there are an awful lot of exports made in cork (viagra is/was the country's biggest produced by pfizer in cork, national headquarters dublin)

Would you like rural areas to start charging urban centers for water exports? Property is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it, that's what dictates its value not build cost or size or whatever else and that is what any property tax should be based on.

As were one, very small country the constant county or rural/urban friction is annoying.

mitosis

I stand corrected. Apparently 25% of the population only provide 52% of the taxes. From FG web page.

Income Tax (PAYE):
Dublin paid 50.6% of all PAYE in 2008 raising more than €5 billion for the Government. This works out at €4,441 per inhabitant.
Cork came next providing 8% or €1,722 per person.
Westmeath provided 5.4% or €7,025 per person, Galway 4.5% or €2,046 per person, followed by Kerry (3.5% or €2,571 per person), Limerick (3.3% or €1,881 per person) and Kildare (3% or €1,668 per person).
All other counties provided less than 2% to the pot.
The average is €2,449 per person.
Income Tax (Non-PAYE):
Dublin paid 38.8% followed by Cork at 11%, Galway 4.5%, Kildare 4%, Limerick 3.9%, Meath 3.5%, Wicklow 3.4% and Tipperary 3.0%
VAT:
Dublin contributed 55.6% of all VAT, followed by Cork at 8.8% and Kildare 3.4%. All other counties accounted for less than 3% of the VAT take individually.
Corporation Tax:
Dublin-based companies paid 62.4% of all Corporation Profit Tax yielding €3.2bn out of a total tax of €5.1bn in 2008. Cork provided 7.7% and Limerick 4.3%
Capital Gains Tax:
Dublin paid 41% of all Capital Gains Tax with Cork on 7.6%, Kildare on 5.1%, Galway on 4.6%, Wicklow on 4%, Meath 3.5% and Sligo 3%

mitosis

Balmed Out wrote: »

source????
Any figures I have ever come across would be substantially less then that.

Taxes in Ireland are recorded from wherever they are paid. That means that a lot of companies which operate throughout the country will have wages and corporation tax etc paid from the head office which will more often then not be Dublin. For instance there's nearly twice the amount of PAYE paid in Dublin than in Cork but 6 or 7 times the amount of corporation tax paid in Dublin in comparison even though there are an awful lot of exports made in cork (viagra is/was the country's biggest produced by pfizer in cork, national headquarters dublin)

Would you like rural areas to start charging urban centers for water exports? Property is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it, that's what dictates its value not build cost or size or whatever else and that is what any property tax should be based on.

As were one, very small country the constant county or rural/urban friction is annoying.

Six times, as it happens.

Balmed Out

mitosis wrote: »

Six times, as it happens.

I think those figures are from Leo in 2010, what he neglects is their from those paid from Dublin not by Dublin workers. Here's an article from the time
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfcwojeyaumh/rss2/

Victor

cookie1977, Rereggie Perrin - stop bickering

Moderator

murphaph

If the revenue raised in (say) South Dublin remained in South Dublin and went towards improving the amenity of South Dublin then I (as someone with property in South Dublin) don't have a problem that the higher value of property in South Dublin means higher property taxes, like council tax in the UK. This of course doesn't appear to be the plan and the property tax will just be used to reduce the subvention to each local authority from central government.

The_Conductor

murphaph wrote: »

If the revenue raised in (say) South Dublin remained in South Dublin and went towards improving the amenity of South Dublin then I (as someone with property in South Dublin) don't have a problem that the higher value of property in South Dublin means higher property taxes, like council tax in the UK. This of course doesn't appear to be the plan and the property tax will just be used to reduce the subvention to each local authority from central government.

You have it in one there.
The intention is to abolish the government subvention for local councils- and have them all pay their property tax into a central kitty which would then dish out the dosh according to set criteria. If a particular council wanted- they could increase the property tax by up to 25%- I don't know if this additional sum would remain locally?