Property Tax (MOD REMINDER: Don't get too personal)

Zubeneschamali

darkhorse wrote: »

That would be interesting. I'd love to see a show of hands as to who would prefer to have a further income tax deduction, or to pay a tax on their home.

If the amounts were the same, it makes no odds to me.

But the amounts would not be the same, because the poorer half the country pays no income tax, while the rich hire a bunch of tax accountants allowing them to declare income as a Capital Gain, or as a return on some tax-exempt investment or other, or just declare their income in Monaco or Jersey.

To collect the same amount, they'd have to take twice as much from those of us who do pay income tax.

Godge

darkhorse wrote: »

So, how come Tony Keegan in Mayo was prosecuted for non-payment of Household Charge.

I am still waiting for an answer to the following post.

Godge wrote: »

What is the difference between a "charge" and a "tax"?
Can you provide a link to relevant Acts of the Oireachtas that define the difference?
Can you give other examples of "charges" and "taxes" as an illustration of the difference?



Thanks

You have kept it up for two pages now that the Household Charge is a charge but not a tax without explaining the difference.

Godge

darkhorse wrote: »

You know very well that beef said it and that I mirrored his statement whilst answering his post, in order to reiterate that one of the reasons given by some posters as to why we should be inflicted with a property tax, was the fact that because other countries had a property tax, then we should have one. You also know from all my posts, also from us debating on this thread, that would not be my stance, and you are clever enough to know at this stage, that I vehemently abhor the imposition of a tax on a family home, not just mine, but everyone's family home.

One of the difficulties in debating this issue is that Irish society has an immature, emotional, irrational attachment to property, especially owning ones own home.

It is not sufficient to vehemently abhor the imposition of a tax on a family home if you don't advance any logical, coherent, rational objections to one.

bgrizzley

oscarBravo wrote: »

Goalpost shift alert: that's not what I asked.

Your proposal is that everyone - everyone - should have their income tax increased. I'm curious how many of your fellow travelers agree, and - thus far - the silence is deafening.

It's the logical conclusion to the constant bleating about every tax being unfair apart from income taxes.

I agree with him, though in the issue of low paid, I, d be happy with a nominal sum. Just to show that everyone has a stake in fixing our politicians' mess. This country needs a bit of solidarity, something lost on that shower of division promoting messers in DE.

bgrizzley

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the amounts were the same, it makes no odds to me.

But the amounts would not be the same, because the poorer half the country pays no income tax, while the rich hire a bunch of tax accountants allowing them to declare income as a Capital Gain, or as a return on some tax-exempt investment or other, or just declare their income in Monaco or Jersey.

To collect the same amount, they'd have to take twice as much from those of us who do pay income tax.

That's about the best point I've had in favour of this tax. But there are more ways than one to skin a cat. Concentrate the revenue on getting the 57 millions instead or the 5700s and we are sorted

oscarBravo

bgrizzley wrote: »

I agree with him, though in the issue of low paid, I, d be happy with a nominal sum. Just to show that everyone has a stake in fixing our politicians' mess. This country needs a bit of solidarity, something lost on that shower of division promoting messers in DE.

Gestures of solidarity won't pay the bills. If we're going to broaden the tax base, and if taxes other than income tax are off the table, then we're going to have to make our income tax system less progressive, and that means the bulk of the increases have to be at the bottom end of the pay scale.

Zubeneschamali

oscarBravo wrote: »

the bulk of the increases have to be at the bottom end of the pay scale.

Well, I would say rather that the bulk of the new money collected would have to be at the bottom end. You could still throw in a headline "soak the rich" tax on incomes over 100K, it just wouldn't collect much actual money.

Pushing bands and allowances so that people pay a bit more at the bottom would collect far more money, because there are far more people at the bottom of the scale than at the top.

oscarBravo

Yup. Hence, "broadening the tax base" - but still dangerously dependent on employment numbers to prop up government revenues.

Godge

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, I would say rather that the bulk of the new money collected would have to be at the bottom end. You could still throw in a headline "soak the rich" tax on incomes over 100K, it just wouldn't collect much actual money.

Pushing bands and allowances so that people pay a bit more at the bottom would collect far more money, because there are far more people at the bottom of the scale than at the top.

I have always felt that the Government medium-term plan was to freeze social welfare, public service pay and tax credits and allow inflation and consequential private sector pay increases to deliver the extra revenue. The inflation hasn't happened and the private sector pay increases have only started in the last year at around 2% (and not everywhere) which has meant the budget deficit has remained large and they had to go back to the public sector for more.

bgrizzley

oscarBravo wrote: »

Gestures of solidarity won't pay the bills. If we're going to broaden the tax base, and if taxes other than income tax are off the table, then we're going to have to make our income tax system less progressive, and that means the bulk of the increases have to be at the bottom end of the pay scale.

The tax base is broad enough, incompetent management was/is the problem. Do you honestly think that they wont be after something else in a few years time when the lpt isnt enough to pay for giant nails in O Connell street(a child tax or some other craziness).
They are like junkies, more money they get the more they waste.
It has to stop.

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

The tax base is broad enough, incompetent management was/is the problem.

How do you suggest we 'manage' our way out of our deficit situation?

We've a taxation shortfall, and a need for an ongoing sustainable taxation base. Property taxation is part of solving both problems.

oscarBravo

bgrizzley wrote: »

The tax base is broad enough...

There have been some rather bizarre assertions in the course of this thread, but that's a doozy.

bgrizzley

oscarBravo wrote: »

There have been some rather bizarre assertions in the course of this thread, but that's a doozy.

maybe you should have left the rest of the sentence...

And its just as valid as your opinion, or whoevers opinion you were repeating...

bgrizzley

alastair wrote: »

How do you suggest we 'manage' our way out of our deficit situation?

tbh Alastair, i'm not a qualified teacher or a publican. i couldnt answer that.

We've a taxation shortfall, and a need for an ongoing sustainable taxation base. Property taxation is part of solving both problems.

If property taxation wasnt an option what would you do?

oscarBravo

bgrizzley wrote: »

maybe you should have left the rest of the sentence...

It wouldn't have made any difference. Incompetent management is what led to the erosion of the tax base, but to claim that a tax regime where half of workers paid no income tax is "broad enough", without even getting into the over-reliance on property market transaction taxes... it beggars belief.

And its just as valid as your opinion...

What makes it equally valid? It's based on nothing whatsoever but wishful thinking.

oscarBravo

bgrizzley wrote: »

If property taxation wasnt an option what would you do?

If your aunt had balls, would she be your uncle?

darkhorse

Godge wrote: »

What is the difference between a "charge" and a "tax"?


Thanks

The spelling?

bgrizzley

oscarBravo wrote: »

It wouldn't have made any difference. Incompetent management is what led to the erosion of the tax base,

i think you are agreeing with me and you dont realise it

but to claim that a tax regime where half of workers paid no income tax is "broad enough", without even getting into the over-reliance on property market transaction taxes... it beggars belief.

is income tax the only tax you pay? lucky you...





Are your saying that if the country was well managed on the old regime of taxes we would still have problems?

every politician of every creed and colour has been calling for/promising tax cuts since i can remember.
if these hadnt been followed through do you think we would still need to "broaden our tax base".

do you seriously think we would need a property tax now?

Slick50

Phoebas wrote: »

... and some others are determined to portray thieves and tax evaders as moral crusaders. :rolleyes:

Who is portraying thieves and/or tax evaders as moral crusaders.? What thieves or tax evaders are you talking about.?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yup. Hence, "broadening the tax base" - but still dangerously dependent on employment numbers to prop up government revenues.

Where is the money supposed to come from, if people are unemployed.? That's a doozy in itself, base your revenue, on collecting taxes from people who have no money.

darkhorse

Godge wrote: »

Can you provide a link to relevant Acts of the Oireachtas that define the difference?
Can you give other examples of "charges" and "taxes" as an illustration of the difference?

Thanks

No and No.

darkhorse

alastair wrote: »

That's what they call democracy.

I know.

bgrizzley

oscarBravo wrote: »

If your aunt had balls, would she be your uncle?

your near single minded obsession with this particular tax is indeed admirable...

darkhorse

alastair wrote: »

I saw his post - he doesn't say what you claim - as I pointed out earlier.

I know I said in the past that I wouldn't keep mollycuddling you, but this is the last time.

beeftotheheels
Registered User


Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,645
Adverts | Friends
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkhorse
Of course, you are 100% correct in everything you say, and, notice in both of your posts, the two common denominators in the ruination of our country are FF and FG, which shows that throughout history, with both these parties, that it is party before country, at any cost. That not withstanding, and aside from Enda Kenny's views on LPT in the past, whether those views be moralistic, or just lies to the electorate in order to secure votes, I could never, in all conscientiousness, agree that there is any justification to a tax on my family home.
That's just because it is a new tax for you. I lived in the UK where council tax many many times higher than the LPT was the norm. Over time you get used to it and then it seems normal.

Any new tax is going to have the same effect. Imagine I told you that from tomorrow you'd have to pay €1 tax every time you wore a blue tee-shirt?

Despite the fact that you could easily avoid that tax by never again wearing a blue tee-shirt it would strike you as nonsensical and unjust (and okay that one probably would be). One of the reasons it would strike you as such is because it is taxing something new that was never taxed before.

The point is we need new stable taxes which people can't avoid, and that don't fall away when the economy tanks the way stamp duty and CGT did, so we have to tax reasonably stable things like income (USC) and groceries (VAT) and houses (LPT) but because the last one costs you less then the changes to the other two, but taxes something new, it strikes you as more unjust than the VAT rate hike, or replacement of the health levy with USC because they were familiar taxes.

This is how people have always reacted to new taxes, from throwing tea off a ship in the US, through bricking up their chimneys to avoid hearth tax (and risking dying of smoke inhalation), or bricking up windows to avoid window tax.

It is just the way of the world, but if you hadn't always lived in Ireland it wouldn't strike you as inherently unfair to tax your house - most countries do it and tax it a lot more heavily than we do.

Can it be any more plain? Surely, this not just on my screen.

oscarBravo

bgrizzley wrote: »

i think you are agreeing with me and you dont realise it

I'm not agreeing with you. You've claimed that our tax base is sufficiently broad, but that our country is incompetently managed. That implies that, with more competent management, we could have weathered the collapse of our tax revenues.

If you're seriously going to claim that our tax base is sufficiently broad, there is a real onus on you to explain what measures you feel should have been implemented when government revenue was slashed.

Or you could come back with another quip about teachers and publicans.

is income tax the only tax you pay? lucky you...

You're trying to claim that our tax regime is broadly based because we have more than one type of tax?

Do you even understand what I'm talking about?

Are your saying that if the country was well managed on the old regime of taxes we would still have problems?

I'm saying that if our country was well managed, we'd have a completely different regime of taxes.

every politician of every creed and colour has been calling for/promising tax cuts since i can remember.
if these hadnt been followed through do you think we would still need to "broaden our tax base".

I'm not talking about tax rates, I'm talking about the range of sources of tax. We need a variety of different taxes, and - by definition - they can't all be progressive.

do you seriously think we would need a property tax now?

We had property taxes until 1977. Their elimination is precisely the form of erosion of the tax base I'm talking about.

Slick50 wrote: »

Where is the money supposed to come from, if people are unemployed.?

I forgot, you can't get your head around the idea of taxing anything whatsoever other than income.

bgrizzley wrote: »

your near single minded obsession with this particular tax is indeed admirable...

It may have escaped your notice, but this particular tax is the topic of this thread.

oscarBravo

darkhorse wrote: »

Can it be any more plain? Surely, this not just on my screen.

I'll spell this out for you again. You'll ignore it again, because I'm not saying what you want to hear, but I'm patient like that.

The point that was made was if taxing property was inherently unfair, then it would be almost unheard of. It's not at all unheard of; it's extremely commonplace across a wide range of countries with widely differing political philosophies. That gives the lie to the idea that taxing property is such a bizarre and shocking concept that the very idea of introducing it here somehow beggars belief.

Now, you can deliberately misread that as "we should have a property tax because others do", but only if you've so completely given up on the idea of actually trying to make arguments based on logic and reason that you have to resort to little more than "I know you are, but what am I?" playground logic.

darkhorse

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your proposal is that everyone - everyone - should have their income tax increased. I'm curious how many of your fellow travelers agree, and - thus far - the silence is deafening.

Instead of a tax on homes, certainly. After all, we, as citizens were told that we are all in this together.

Slick50

oscarBravo wrote: »

I forgot, you can't get your head around the idea of taxing anything whatsoever other than income.

You didn't forget, because I never said, or ever implied any such thing.
You've avoided the question. You are saying we need this tax because you can't depend on returns from employment, where is this money going to come from, if people are unemployed?

oscarBravo

darkhorse wrote: »

Instead of a tax on homes, certainly. After all, we, as citizens were told that we are all in this together.

So minimum wage earners should take a pay cut to support your principled objection to a property tax (the principle being, apparently, "I don't want to pay it")?

Slick50 wrote: »

You are saying we need this tax because you can't depend on returns from employment, where is this money going to come from, if people are unemployed?

From taxes other than income tax, obviously.

Slick50

oscarBravo wrote: »

From taxes other than income tax, obviously.

We are talking about the LPT, if someone is unemployed, where is the money going to come from to pay this?

bgrizzley

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not agreeing with you. You've claimed that our tax base is sufficiently broad, but that our country is incompetently managed. That implies that, with more competent management, we could have weathered the collapse of our tax revenues.

yes, prove me wrong!

If you're seriously going to claim that our tax base is sufficiently broad, there is a real onus on you to explain what measures you feel should have been implemented when government revenue was slashed.

there would be no measures necessary if they hadnt promised tax cuts at every hands turn taking most of the working population out of the tax net, and then greedily fueled a property bubble / bust to compound matters.

You're trying to claim that our tax regime is broadly based because we have more than one type of tax?

Do you even understand what I'm talking about? I'm saying that if our country was well managed, we'd have a completely different regime of taxes. I'm not talking about tax rates, I'm talking about the range of sources of tax. We need a variety of different taxes, and - by definition - they can't all be progressive.

this is a mass of contradictions, and vaguely insulting. i cant engage it unless you clear it up a bit.

We had property taxes until 1977. Their elimination is precisely the form of erosion of the tax base I'm talking about.

im not sure if you remember, but their elimination was followed by an elimination in services, and a rise in other taxes. neither of which has been reversed.

I forgot, you can't get your head around the idea of taxing anything whatsoever other than income.

if you say that often enough it will become true...

It may have escaped your notice, but this particular tax is the topic of this thread.

so much so that you cant even bear the thought of positing an argument for any other :rolleyes:

creedp

oscarBravo wrote: »

We had property taxes until 1977. Their elimination is precisely the form of erosion of the tax base I'm talking about.

For someone who paid almost €30k in stamp duty to purchase my home in 2004 .. I'd be of the view that property taxes remained in place after 1977. It would take over 60 years for me to give the same tax revenue to the Govt under the current LPT rate and I will be paying back that debt to a bank for 20 years. It seems to me that it is highly unfair to introduce a tax on property but give no credit for horrendous levels of property taxes already paid on the same property. Imagine how people who moved home and therefore bought and sold more than one home and paid multiple horrendous levels of property tax must feel.

Its also a little difficult to take that people who recently bought a house at much reduced prices are exempted from paying the property tax for a number of years .. why? Do they not own a home? Do they not use local public services? Another nonsensical exemption introduced to the already burgedoning range of nonsensical exemptions in the Irish tax code making it even more difficult to accept.

bgrizzley

oscarBravo wrote: »

So minimum wage earners should take a pay cut to support your principled objection to a property tax (the principle being, apparently, "I don't want to pay it")?

what is the difference in a minimum wage earner paying E2 tax per week and E100 property tax PA.
BTW if income tax went up i'd be paying a damn sight more than what i owe on the LPT

From taxes other than income tax, obviously.

I thought your argument was that there were no other taxes except Income in our narrow tax base.

oscarBravo

Slick50 wrote: »

We are talking about the LPT, if someone is unemployed, where is the money going to come from to pay this?

Where's the money going to come from to pay VAT? Where's the money going to come from to pay excise duties on cigarettes and alcohol? Where's the money going to come from to pay motor tax? TV licence?

bgrizzley wrote: »

there would be no measures necessary if they hadnt promised tax cuts at every hands turn taking most of the working population out of the tax net, and then greedily fueled a property bubble / bust to compound matters.

Great. All you have to do is arrange things so that none of those things happened, and then we won't need a property tax.

This is a mass of contradictions, and vaguely insulting. i cant engage it unless you clear it up a bit.

What's contradictory? What's insulting?

so much so that you cant even bear the thought of positing an argument for any other :rolleyes:

I'm on record as stating that we need this property tax, as well as a less progressive income tax regime and cuts in public expenditure.

I'm not the one shaking the magic money tree in this thread. If you're going to argue that we shouldn't have a property tax, you need to explain where the money's going to come from instead. I'd also ask you to explain how we broaden our tax base, but - bizarrely - you don't think that's necessary, because, clearly, our tax system is perfectly robust and well able to handle economic shocks.

oscarBravo

bgrizzley wrote: »

what is the difference in a minimum wage earner paying E2 tax per week and E100 property tax PA.

A reduced dependency on income taxes.

BTW if income tax went up i'd be paying a damn sight more than what i owe on the LPT

And you'd vote for a party that promised to jack up your income tax, as long as they got rid of property taxes?

I thought your argument was that there were no other taxes except Income in our narrow tax base.

I'm not sure why you thought that, because I've certainly never said it.

darkhorse

darkhorse wrote: »

Because it was a charge?

The Household Charge (Due for 2012 ONLY)

The Household Charge (HC) is an annual charge introduced by the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 which is payable by owners of residential property. It is a matter for owners of residential properties to register and pay the HC on or after 1 January 2012.

You see my post above, well I just copied and paste that from this site below, according to which, it states, that which I posted, nothing added by me. If you, or anyone else can see anywhere where it says anything about the HHC being a tax in 2012, well then I put my hands up:

Household Charge - Online Payment System

Godge

darkhorse wrote: »

The spelling?

darkhorse wrote: »

No and No.

Essentially, those posts are an admittance that you don't know what you are talking about and you have nothing to back up your repeated claim that there is a difference between a charge and a tax.

bgrizzley

oscarBravo wrote: »

Great. All you have to do is arrange things so that none of those things happened, and then we won't need a property tax.

time travelling aside, this seems to imply that you agree with me that if it wasnt for bad managment we wouldnt need a property tax. why all the arguments then?

I'm on record as stating that we need this property tax, as well as a less progressive income tax regime and cuts in public expenditure.


I'm not the one shaking the magic money tree in this thread. If you're going to argue that we shouldn't have a property tax, you need to explain where the money's going to come from instead.

i have already, but you just shoutback "hail property tax, throw money at the government all will be well!"

I'd also ask you to explain how we broaden our tax base, but - bizarrely - you don't think that's necessary, because, clearly, our tax system is perfectly robust and well able to handle economic shocks.

it would be perfectly serviceable, if the boyos we pay handsomnely to manage the country did their job!!

oscarBravo

darkhorse wrote: »

Godge wrote: »

What is the difference between a "charge" and a "tax"?

The spelling?

darkhorse wrote: »

You see my post above, well I just copied and paste that from this site below, according to which, it states, that which I posted, nothing added by me. If you, or anyone else can see anywhere where it says anything about the HHC being a tax in 2012, well then I put my hands up:

I'm confused. You dodge the question about the difference between a tax and a charge with a smart-arsed answer, then come back and continue to flog the dead horse?

Tell me: if income tax was renamed in the morning to "income charge", would that make it not a tax? Is the USC not a tax?

Why, exactly, are you labouring this point?

oscarBravo

bgrizzley wrote: »

time travelling aside, this seems to imply that you agree with me that if it wasnt for bad managment we wouldnt need a property tax. why all the arguments then?

Because we have had bad management, and we do need a property tax. Your argument now seems to be that if we hadn't had bad management, we wouldn't need a property tax, therefore we don't need a property tax.

i have already, but you just shoutback "hail property tax, throw money at the government all will be well!"

You've claimed our tax regime is sustainable. You haven't adduced any evidence for this, other than hand-waving such as:

it would be perfectly serviceable, if the boyos we pay handsomnely to manage the country did their job!!

Basically, to sum up your arguments, a succession of governments mismanaged the country by eliminating taxes and cutting tax rates. This has led to a situation where we're running a huge deficit - so what we need is for the present government to no longer manage the country badly, but not by broadening the tax base that you've acknowledged past governments eroded, rather by doing something else that you don't want to get into but definitely not introducing new taxes.

And you describe my posts as contradictory and unclear?

bgrizzley

oscarBravo wrote: »

A reduced dependency on income taxes.

wood for the trees, minimum wage guy wouldnt notice the difference and neither would the state.

And you'd vote for a party that promised to jack up your income tax, as long as they got rid of property taxes?

yes i will vote for that party. i only wish i had an opportunity in the past.



anyway, night lads and lassies. its been a pleasure OB

Slick50

oscarBravo wrote: »

Where's the money going to come from to pay VAT? Where's the money going to come from to pay excise duties on cigarettes and alcohol? Where's the money going to come from to pay motor tax? TV licence?

???????

oscarBravo wrote: »

It may have escaped your notice, but this particular tax is the topic of this thread.

Slick50 wrote:

You are saying we need this tax because you can't depend on returns from employment, where is this money going to come from, if people are unemployed?

You don't seem to be able to address this question for some reason. You've stated this tax, is necessary to broaden the tax base. So we do that by basing it on the diminishing return of clawing back a percentage of the money you give to some of the unemployed.

oscarBravo

bgrizzley wrote: »

wood for the trees, minimum wage guy wouldnt notice the difference and neither would the state.

The state would notice the difference if he lost his job.

yes i will vote for that party. i only wish i had an opportunity in the past.

You'll be waiting. Irish people don't vote for parties that promise to raise taxes (unless it's taxes on other people).

Slick50 wrote: »

You don't seem to be able to address this question for some reason. You've stated this tax, is necessary to broaden the tax base. So we do that by basing it on the diminishing return of clawing back a percentage of the money you give to some of the unemployed.

What makes it a diminishing return?

darkhorse

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But the amounts would not be the same, because the poorer half the country pays no income tax, while the rich hire a bunch of tax accountants allowing them to declare income as a Capital Gain, or as a return on some tax-exempt investment or other.

Could government not change the laws to specifically deal with this?

Slick50

oscarBravo wrote: »

What makes it a diminishing return?

You pay out more than you get back.

paul71

darkhorse wrote: »

Could government not change the laws to specifically deal with this?

There have been some moves towards this, DIRT increases, restrictions on mortgage interest as an expense for landlords, and limits on pension contribution relief for directors. What is interesting is that income tax increases have a higher impact on middle income and low income earners then on super-rich because much of the income of super rich is not sourced from employment income.

One of the biggest causes of the property bubble was the section 23 relief on rental properties and also relief on car park investments, even 20 years later some of these releifs are only now coming to the end of their lifes. There is probably room for looking at an increase dividend with-holding taxes, but the unfortunate thing about increasing taxes on the super-rich is that they can always do a Denis O'Brien and leave the country thus resulting in a net loss of revenue to the state from an increase in income tax rates.

alastair

darkhorse wrote: »

Can it be any more plain? Surely, this not just on my screen.

I'd have thought it was very clear - but obviously not enough for you? He's not saying what you claim for him - as has already be explained to you.

creedp

paul71 wrote: »

but the unfortunate thing about increasing taxes on the super-rich is that they can always do a Denis O'Brien and leave the country thus resulting in a net loss of revenue to the state from an increase in income tax rates.

I don't think DOB wil be challenging the couple of grand LPT he might have to pay on his mansion(s) in Ireland. This is the problem with regressive non-income based taxes .. the DOBs of this world love them.

alastair

darkhorse wrote: »

You see my post above, well I just copied and paste that from this site below, according to which, it states, that which I posted, nothing added by me. If you, or anyone else can see anywhere where it says anything about the HHC being a tax in 2012, well then I put my hands up:

Household Charge - Online Payment System

It really needs to be spelled out for you, that it's a tax?

alastair

Slick50 wrote: »

You pay out more than you get back.

Unless you're in a very small minority - you'll get more for your taxes than you pay into the system.

alastair

creedp wrote: »

I don't think DOB wil be challenging the couple of grand LPT he might have to pay on his mansion(s) in Ireland. This is the problem with regressive non-income based taxes .. the DOBs of this world love them.

How much in income tax does he pay here again?