Property tax means you don't own your home.

pandaboy

Gambas wrote: »

Redistribution of wealth is a hideous concept, isn't it?

As is the trickle down effect when it comes to the collection of tax from multinational corporations, but that's a story for another day.

It would be great though if there was a proper redistribution, and collection of wealth in this country. Simeone made a great point about DO'B. Plus, when taking in the context of multinationals, didn't Apple get away with paying sweet F.A. on tax - same with Google, and Amazon.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/may/29/apple-tax-profits-ireland-cork

From the locale of KNocknaheeny myself, and worked for Apple and am pretty aware of their system up there. Lads it's scary, and it's going to get scarier. They're pretty much buying up the land from around the community and buulding their own staff campus there. Now, understandably, Apple's profits would be used to pay for this, but aren't the tax euro of Irish taxpayers used as an incentive for companies to expand their business?

Sorry for bringing in the multi-national corporation argument, but seriously the amount of domestic tax versus corporate tax is just staggering. Why can't we chase these fecks for the full 12.5% of the tax they should be paying.

Buzz Killington the third

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Should children or those unable to work be entitled to expect something for nothing? Is the redistribution of wealth towards education and healthcare that facilitates social mobility and people's ability to "contribute more" immoral?

That's a different argument all together.

Maximus Alexander

pandaboy wrote: »

Sorry for bringing in the multi-national corporation argument, but seriously the amount of domestic tax versus corporate tax is just staggering. Why can't we chase these fecks for the full 12.5% of the tax they should be paying.

I don't understand why any citizen of Ireland would want to push this? The entire reason these corporations come here is because they can get away with paying so little tax. They spend a fortune in the country in other ways, both directly and indirectly employing thousands of people - why on Earth would we want to chase them out by looking for a short term tax fix?

The fact that other countries have a problem with Ireland allowing this tells you all you need to know about it.

RandomName2

Diego Simeone wrote: »

I wouldn't particularly have a problem with the geographical element being removed from the property tax - hence any charges being based around the variance in values from the mean levels within an area of the country.

But location is the greatest determination of value and value is the only means of determining "wealth".

The poorest part of the city is more valuable than the richest part of the country, like for like.

Buzz Killington the third

pandaboy wrote: »

Why can't we chase these fecks for the full 12.5% of the tax they should be paying.

Because they do one hell of a service to the country by providing thousands of jobs, not to mention the intake from tourism resulting from business trips and trade shows.

jimgoose

pandaboy wrote: »

As is the trickle down effect when it comes to the collection of tax from multinational corporations, but that's a story for another day.

It would be great though if there was a proper redistribution, and collection of wealth in this country. Simeone made a great point about DO'B. Plus, when taking in the context of multinationals, didn't Apple get away with paying sweet F.A. on tax - same with Google, and Amazon.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/may/29/apple-tax-profits-ireland-cork

From the locale of KNocknaheeny myself, and worked for Apple and am pretty aware of their system up there. Lads it's scary, and it's going to get scarier. They're pretty much buying up the land from around the community and buulding their own staff campus there. Now, understandably, Apple's profits would be used to pay for this, but aren't the tax euro of Irish taxpayers used as an incentive for companies to expand their business?

Sorry for bringing in the multi-national corporation argument, but seriously the amount of domestic tax versus corporate tax is just staggering. Why can't we chase these fecks for the full 12.5% of the tax they should be paying.

If there's a problem here, I'm not seeing it. I was an engineer up there for a couple of years in the '90s, and frankly the place never looked better than it does now.

pandaboy

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I don't understand why any citizen of Ireland would want to push this? The entire reason these corporations come here is because they can get away with paying so little tax. They spend a fortune in the country in other ways, both directly and indirectly employing thousands of people - why on Earth would we want to chase them out by looking for a short term tax fix?

The fact that other countries have a problem with Ireland allowing this tells you all you need to know about it.

I completely agree with you, and they provide for the local economy. Well to a degree, not many from the near local community working Apple other than their production lines which are slowly being moved beyond Ireland.

What I'm getting at is the tax loophole in which, Apple for example, did not pay its full rate of 12.5%. This is the thing that irks me, why should a company go unscathed when they don't pay the full amount of tax that's already at an extremely low rate? Why are they allowed to use the opportunity of an multi-company international tax loophole to escape paying?

I'm all for low tax rates for international business, once they provide for the local community and town they're based within and pay the actual tax rate. There's no point in raising the tax rate if a company is not paying the full current rate. That's just economic suicide on our part.

Gambas

pandaboy wrote: »

Sorry for bringing in the multi-national corporation argument, but seriously the amount of domestic tax versus corporate tax is just staggering. Why can't we chase these fecks for the full 12.5% of the tax they should be paying.

The simple reason we charge the multinationals tax as it currently stands is because the state believes that is the means of maximising our financial benefit from FDI. The state believes that if we were to raise the rate (or drop it for that matter), the net benefit to the state would fall. Whether they are right or wrong is a different argument. And one that might become somewhat irrelevant because it looks like there will be a trans-national agreement on minimum tax take that will force our hand.

As for inheritance tax - the logic is pretty sound, and common too. Allowing wealth to accumulate in certain families will provide them with the means to further accumulate wealth and drive inequality. Taking everything that belongs to the dead and redistributing it is obviously too extreme and would be subject to massive evasion. A middle ground where you keep some, and more is redistributed makes sense.

Valetta

pandaboy wrote: »

I completely agree with you, and they provide for the local economy. Well to a degree, not many from the near local community working Apple other than their production lines which are slowly being moved beyond Ireland.

What I'm getting at is the tax loophole in which, Apple for example, did not pay its full rate of 12.5%. This is the thing that irks me, why should a company go unscathed when they don't pay the full amount of tax that's already at an extremely low rate? Why are they allowed to use the opportunity of an multi-company international tax loophole to escape paying?

I'm all for low tax rates for international business, once they provide for the local community and town they're based within and pay the actual tax rate. There's no point in raising the tax rate if a company is not paying the full current rate. That's just economic suicide on our part.

They don't avail of any tax schemes that are not available to all Irish companies.

jimgoose

pandaboy wrote: »

I completely agree with you, and they provide for the local economy. Well to a degree, not many from the near local community working Apple other than their production lines which are slowly being moved beyond Ireland.

What I'm getting at is the tax loophole in which, Apple for example, did not pay its full rate of 12.5%. This is the thing that irks me, why should a company go unscathed when they don't pay the full amount of tax that's already at an extremely low rate? Why are they allowed to use the opportunity of an multi-company international tax loophole to escape paying?

I'm all for low tax rates for international business, once they provide for the local community and town they're based within and pay the actual tax rate. There's no point in raising the tax rate if a company is not paying the full current rate. That's just economic suicide on our part.

Laffer Curve.

Geuze

No Pants wrote: »

I don't think that's true. If I remember correctly, the health levy was 4% and the income levy was 2%. The USC for most people is 7% and the liability threshold is lower.

See p54 here:

http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/Policy%20perspectives%20publication%202013_final.pdf

"The Universal Social Charge, like any tax increase, was not welcomed by the public.
Taxpayers experienced a drop in net income in Budget 2011. Many people thought the USC
was the reason for the reduction in their net income. This was not the case for many
taxpayers.

The reason many income earners saw reductions in their net income was due to the
reduction in income tax credits and bands that also occurred in Budget 2011. Most taxpayers
earning over €26,000 per annum would have benefited from the introduction of the USC all
other things being equal; particularly those earning between €26,000 and €35,000 who had
been suffering disproportionately from the sudden impact of the 4% Health Levy.

While many income earners would be better off under the USC than the Income Levy and
Health Levy combined, there are a significant number who will pay more tax as a result of
the introduction of the USC. This is due to the fact that there were many exemptions from the
Income Levy and Health Levy. The entry points to paying these charges were relatively high
and the numbers of exempt individuals were also high. For example, only 989,000 income
earners paid the Health Levy – this is less than half the total number of income earners on the
tax record and was due to the high exemption threshold to the levy as well as the different
types of income and income earners that were exempted from the levy."

Cookie_Monster

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Either does paying more income tax? Ideally all taxation should be progressive.

no it shouldn't, why should those who earn more pay proportionally more?
A flat tax with no credits is the only fair form of tax. (Say) 10%, it doesn't matter if you earn 10k or 100k same rate but the bigger earner still pays far more in cash terms.

pandaboy

jimgoose wrote: »

Laffer Curve.

Thanks for that, reading about it now. Bang on, and something I haven't been aware of.

Coming to this as a lay person, I'm all for 12.5% taxation, I don't believe it should be raised given that it's not being paid properly now, so I can't see how a raise in the tax could be beneficial.

RE Trans Atlantic Pact - That's a big big thing and something I'm not looking forward to.

Looking at the Guardian article above though, can anyone agree with this, using Apple as an example. This is going off the OP a bit, but it still relates to taxation and why there's a need for taxation. It should be fair across the bar, a highly unlikely scenario but still. There's no point in arguining about how much motor tax affects the maintenance of our roads when our Corporate tax is not being fulfilled, and there's a big difference in the coffers between both of those taxes.

Wibbs

bluewolf wrote: »

property tax is nonsense and "other people do it too yknow" isn't an argument for it

+1000 B. That argument really grinds my bloody gears, it's like something you'd hear in the schoolyard. I call it the Bendy Bus protocol. Some gombeen man on an all expenses paid junket sees bendy buses on the streets of some EU city or other and thinks "shure dey'd be great in Dublin". Twats.

Diego Simeone wrote: »

If you have a house worth over 5 million then yes, it is an indication of wealth.

I own my own gaff. Bought and paid for. Standard Dublin semi dee. In the bubble a couple of houses on my road went for the million euro mark. Idiotic, but there you go. Did that make me rich? Did it fcuk. Today their value is more like 250-300 grand, I'm still me, yet I'd pay significantly less on property tax today than in 2005 if it had been around. House prices in Dublin are currently on the rise again. There may even be another daft bubble coming. So my gaff is likely to rise in value again and along with it the property tax I have to stump up. As it is I'll be going up the tax scale next year compared to this. None of this is in my control. "Oh you could move house". To where? And that house may go up or down in value, again out of my control. A house isn't a car, where I can easily go down an engine size to avoid tax. It would be a lot easier for me to do it owning the bloody thing when compared to other poor buggers locked into mad mortgages and it would still be a nonsense suggestion.

Geuze

Local property taxes are sensible taxes.

They are economically-sensible taxes.

They are superior than other taxes in that they cause less distortions to decision-making.

They don't cause less labour supply, as they don't affect the labour-leisure decision.

They are also difficult to evade.

This is why many countries have them.

We should have a local property tax because of their advantages over other taxes.

Amirani

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

no it shouldn't, why should those who earn more pay proportionally more?
A flat tax with no credits is the only fair form of tax. (Say) 10%, it doesn't matter if you earn 10k or 100k same rate but the bigger earner still pays far more in cash terms.

A flat tax has a more significant impact on lower earners because of money's diminishing marginal utility. The rate at which tax impacts on people is logarithmic rather than linear.

Amirani

Wibbs wrote: »

I own my own gaff. Bought and paid for. Standard Dublin semi dee. In the bubble a couple of houses on my road went for the million euro mark. Idiotic, but there you go. Did that make me rich? Did it fcuk. Today their value is more like 250-300 grand, I'm still me, yet I'd pay significantly less on property tax today than in 2005 if it had been around. House prices in Dublin are currently on the rise again. There may even be another daft bubble coming. So my gaff is likely to rise in value again and along with it the property tax I have to stump up. As it is I'll be going up the tax scale next year compared to this. None of this is in my control. "Oh you could move house". To where? And that house may go up or down in value, again out of my control. A house isn't a car, where I can easily go down an engine size to avoid tax. It would be a lot easier for me to do it owning the bloody thing when compared to other poor buggers locked into mad mortgages and it would still be a nonsense suggestion.

The issue with large appreciation in values can be mitigated by using inflation adjusted values (similar to many economic measures of values) or mean values over a set time period. In situations where people can't afford their property tax, allowances can be made.

This isn't, or at least shouldn't be, targeted at the sort of people who are susceptible to swings in house valuation anyway. I'm not advocating US styles property tax bills of 15,000 per year in middle class areas. Property tax on most houses should look to cover some of the cost of the provision of local services.

However, there does exist a number of people, such as Denis O'Brien, who are resident in Ireland, and yet pay no income tax in Ireland. Property tax seems a reasonable way to apply fair levels of taxation on these sorts of people. People with multiple houses and houses with values in the top 5-10%.

Gambas

bluewolf wrote: »

Seriously
Paying stamp duty and all sorts of other taxes on buying a house is bad enough in the first place, property tax is nonsense and "other people do it too yknow" isn't an argument for it

Stamp duty is nonsense, property tax is sensible.

The reason is that one is a transactional tax - which results in the state having a glut of money when times are good and little or none when times are bad and in our case resulted in a government making longterm commitments on public service pay and pensions, social welfare payments on the back of transactional tax revenues that disappeared almost overnight- and the other is a much more stable revenue stream that a) keeps a downward pressure on property prices and b) allows a government to plan longerterm because of a more stable revenue base.

The reason "other people do it too yknow" isn't meant to be an argument for it, but a testament to its effectiveness, especially when you look at who the other people are and how their state finances compare with ours. It wasn't something dreamed up in Dublin yknow.

Reformed Character

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Property tax is money extorted from you by the state, you get absolutely nothing in return. Choose not to pay and you will be eventually be treated as a criminal, financially ruined, or even evicted, despite the fact you have done no harm to anyone. The system is contemptible and it is the essence of serfdom. If you have to pay a tax on your home then you simply don't own it anymore, you are paying rent to the state.

Lols at that.
Does that mean I don't own my car because I pay a tax on that too? What about the cigarettes I buy, I pay tax on them too, so am I only renting them too?

Buzz Killington the third

Gambas wrote: »

keeps a downward pressure on property prices

This isn't true. It adversely affects rental prices by pushing them up, which creates a demand for people to buy as it's thought to be more sustainable in the long run which makes house prices rise, along with property tax.

Wibbs

Diego Simeone wrote: »

The issue with large appreciation in values can be mitigated by using inflation adjusted values (similar to many economic measures of values) or mean values over a set time period.

Which they're not doing and you can bet they won't.

In situations where people can't afford their property tax, allowances can be made.

Like the current "allowances" where the payment is deferred to next year ongoing, so someone could end up with a huge tax bill to the state? Now given the likelihood that a person or family who requires such an allowance for hard times(tm) that's dragging them deeper and deeper into debt. Sod that.

This isn't, or at least shouldn't be, targeted at the sort of people who are susceptible to swings in house valuation anyway.

Shouldn't be is right, but it is.

I'm not advocating US styles property tax bills of 15,000 per year in middle class areas. Property tax on most houses should look to cover some of the cost of the provision of local services.

As it stands the local services angle is BS.

However, there does exist a number of people, such as Denis O'Brien, who are resident in Ireland, and yet pay no income tax in Ireland. Property tax seems a reasonable way to apply fair levels of taxation on these sorts of people. People with multiple houses and houses with values in the top 5-10%.

How many people does Denis and people like him employ in this country? How much indirect tax euros do people like him generate? Quite a bit I'd warrant.

Maximus Alexander

Wibbs wrote: »

Which they're not doing and you can bet they won't. Like the current "allowances" where the payment is deferred to next year ongoing, so someone could end up with a huge tax bill to the state? Now given the likelihood that a person or family who requires such an allowance for hard times(tm) that's dragging them deeper and deeper into debt. Sod that.

Shouldn't be is right, but it is. As it stands the local services angle is BS.

How many people does Denis and people like him employ in this country? How much indirect tax euros do people like him generate? Quite a bit I'd warrant.

Also, how many people like Denis exist in the country, and how much would we realistically expect to get out of them anyway that this should be such a concern?

Chips Lovell

The "other countries do it" point is usually rolled out in response to assertions that a Property Tax is somehow cruel/unusual/unprecedented. The fact that its widely employed internationally suggests that its not.

Reformed Character

Diego Simeone wrote: »

However, there does exist a number of people, such as Denis O'Brien, who are resident in Ireland, and yet pay no income tax in Ireland. Property tax seems a reasonable way to apply fair levels of taxation on these sorts of people. People with multiple houses and houses with values in the top 5-10%.

Denis O'Brien, like many others, is not resident in Ireland for taxation purposes.

leonidas83

Turtwig wrote: »

Not your best analogy. They wouldn't be your clothes if you didn't own them. Your mobile is owned by you by virtue of the fact that it's "your" mobile phone. So yep this person still owns their clothes that they get beaten for.

Putting your analogy aside I see your point. What is the point in owning something for which your in constant fear of losing. In truth, this applies to everything in society and not just tax. Such is how fragile and interdependent our way of life has become.

Staying relevant to taxes, if you want the state to provide services then you need to provide it with funds. Taxes, like any system, can be abused but I don't see how a state like Ireland can avoid a property tax. If you ask me it's a much fairer way of taxing than income tax. The latter really isn't a measure of a person's wealth.
The alternative would be to privatise everything and I don't think anyone would sleep soundly with a privatized justice system.
There has to be a balance, Ireland's state of finance and general social demographics mean that taxes will be prioritised over cuts and privatisation. Tax the rich as the ignorant electorate claim! (And ignore reality while you're at it)

Yes but we do pay taxes already on our income, 6% higher than the OECD average where the highest rate of tax kicks in below the average wage level.

Ireland is a broken system & its a farce. We are taxed to extortionate levels to keep the welfare class comfortable & the majority of the public sector(not all) in la la land in relation to their salaries & pensions.

These two classes in this country now make up a large percentage of our electorate so much so that it influences government policy in a big way.

In the UK, the public sector on average is paid 7% more than their private sector counterparts, in Ireland, its 40%.

The sooner the majority of PAYE workers in this country wake up to the fact they are being screwed with taxes on their income & assets because of certain segments of our population the better.

In a recession, the best way to work your way out of it is to cut expenditure as much as possible & reduce taxes. In Ireland, because of the sheer level of inept governance, they have increased taxes to ridiculous levels & hardly touched expenditure at all. No wonder we have been stuck in this recession for 6+ years now with only marginal growth expected for next year despite the bulls**t coming from government.

Buzz Killington the third

leonidas83 wrote: »

We are taxed to extortionate levels to keep the welfare class comfortable

I was going to say this earlier but decided against it

Amirani

leonidas83 wrote: »

Yes but we do pay taxes already on our income, 6% higher than the OECD average where the highest rate of tax kicks in below the average wage level.

An OECD report says different: http://www.oecd.org/ireland/taxingwages-ireland.htm

leonidas83

Diego Simeone wrote: »

An OECD report says different: http://www.oecd.org/ireland/taxingwages-ireland.htm

I was speaking in relation to the middle to high earners, its well known the lower paid in this country pay a very small % of tax on their income.

Fighting Irish

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

:rolleyes:

of course you own it, stop being ridiculous

once the PT gets going, try not paying and see what happens

donegal__road

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Should the ultra rich not have to pay tax because they don't use the health service, education system and other state-funded services?

Of course not. People don't just pay tax for things they get a benefit from, that's not really the point of taxation.

The person I referred to is not employed.. nor is in receipt of the dole. Is there no place in this country for people that decide to live outside the system?

Valetta

Fighting Irish wrote: »

once the PT gets going, try not paying and see what happens

You will always own your house until you sell it.

In fact, if you don't pay the property tax you will guarantee that you own the house for longer than intended, as you won't be able to sell it.

Amirani

donegal__road wrote: »

The person I referred to is not employed.. nor is in receipt of the dole. Is there no place in this country for people that decide to live outside the system?

Probably not. Everyone relies on, has relied on or will rely on the state at some point in their lives. You can't always just look at someone's current reliance when deciding whether they should pay no tax.

Buzz Killington the third

Valetta wrote: »

In fact, if you don't pay the property tax you will guarantee that you own the house for longer than intended, as you won't be able to sell it.

It'll be deducted at source if you don't pay it.

Cookie_Monster

Diego Simeone wrote: »

A flat tax has a more significant impact on lower earners because of money's diminishing marginal utility. The rate at which tax impacts on people is logarithmic rather than linear.

but they also get rent assistance, medical cards etc etc which higher earners don't. higher earners will also in general spend far more on VAT and other consumption taxes too.

Wibbs

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

The "other countries do it" point is usually rolled out in response to assertions that a Property Tax is somehow cruel/unusual/unprecedented. The fact that its widely employed internationally suggests that its not.

So? Just because it's employed internationally doesn't mean a better system can't be found, certainly a better application of such a system compared to our own.

leonidas83 wrote: »

Ireland is a broken system & its a farce. We are taxed to extortionate levels to keep the welfare class comfortable & the majority of the public sector(not all) in la la land in relation to their salaries & pensions.

+1000.

In the UK, the public sector on average is paid 7% more than their private sector counterparts, in Ireland, its 40%.

And that stat right there sums up the problem, never mind the waste, the duplication of services etc. A farce is right.

In a recession, the best way to work your way out of it is to cut expenditure as much as possible & reduce taxes. In Ireland, because of the sheer level of inept governance, they have increased taxes to ridiculous levels & hardly touched expenditure at all. No wonder we have been stuck in this recession for 6+ years now with only marginal growth expected for next year despite the bulls**t coming from government.

Testify.

Don't get me wrong, we should have a social security safety net. I would not like to see a sink or swim mindset, where some level of fairness isn't applied to all our citizens. However as it is it's deeply unfair in too many cases. The gross inefficiency involved in ours is but one in a long list of problems with our implementation of it. IMHO you could save billions by targeting it where it is actually needed and dialing it back where it's not. Over the years I've seen far too many people receive way more than they require(some to a farcical level), while others in worse straits were/are getting much less. For a start the self employed in need of it are usually on the back foot even applying for it, never mind getting it. I've seen similar daftness with things like medical cards. Some in actual need left fighting for it where others through more luck than judgement get it.

Chips Lovell

Wibbs wrote: »

So? Just because it's employed internationally doesn't mean a better system can't be found, certainly a better application of such a system compared to our own.

I know. No system is perfect and I'm not arguing that.

micosoft

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Neither Denis O'Brien or Michael Smurfit pay any income tax in Ireland. There's 54 individuals who have a net worth of over 50m that don't pay income tax in Ireland, despite living here. I don't think it's unreasonable to be taxing their substantial assets in Ireland via property taxes.

Neither Denis O'Brien or Michael Smurfit live in Ireland. Neither do they earn the bulk or close to the bulk of their income here.

Basically you want to tax people that don't live here on income they don't earn here. Bizarre.

Aside from that Property Taxes are perfectly fine, the right thing to do. There always needs to be a balance between usage based tax and redistributive tax. Given the top tax payers (who actually live and work in the country) pay way over proportionality I think our system is fair if not excessively weighting against high earners. I'd prefer higher minimum pay and social welfare payments if individuals paid their way from it as it creates the notion of a society and not a feudal society where people get things for nothing, creating an entitlement culture.

leonidas83

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

The "other countries do it" point is usually rolled out in response to assertions that a Property Tax is somehow cruel/unusual/unprecedented. The fact that its widely employed internationally suggests that its not.

What about the thousands in Stamp Duty house buyers here had to pay only a few years ago just to get on the property ladder. You wouldnt have found those levels of extortionate stamp duty in most(intelligent) other countries. That should more than have covered the property tax for at least a couple of decades.

Chips Lovell

No, you wouldn't have.

sbsquarepants

The usual tripe spouted when espousing property tax and water charges and so on is "somebody has to pay for service x" Who has paid for it up until now? Were water treatment facilities for example staffed by armies of volunteers running donated machinery up until this point?
No - oh so we've already been paying, you'd just like us to pay twice from now on.
Same with the property tax, it pays for local policing and school teachers and sweet old fúcking lollipop ladies does it? Presumably they too were all volunteers up until now, or shall I expect a rebate of the portion of my paye that paid for all those things previously?
Anyone who sits there and with a straight face claims that all these new charges are not SOLELY AND ENTIRELY to pay for the debts of various formerly privately owned banks is either a moron or a politician.

dxhound2005

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Property tax is money extorted from you by the state, you get absolutely nothing in return. Choose not to pay and you will be eventually be treated as a criminal, financially ruined, or even evicted, despite the fact you have done no harm to anyone. The system is contemptible and it is the essence of serfdom. If you have to pay a tax on your home then you simply don't own it anymore, you are paying rent to the state.

I think you are mixing us up with Northern Ireland. You do indeed run the risk of being made bankrupt and having your house taken by the state if you do not pay your property tax there. The legislation here is much more reasonable, neither of those courses of action are in our law.

Amirani

micosoft wrote: »

Neither Denis O'Brien or Michael Smurfit live in Ireland. Neither do they earn the bulk or close to the bulk of their income.

Basically you want to tax people that don't live here on income they don't earn here. Bizarre.

Aside from that Property Taxes are perfectly fine, the right thing to do. There always needs to be a balance between usage based tax and redistributive tax. Given the top tax payers (who actually live and work in the country). I'd prefer higher minimum pay and social welfare payments if individuals paid their way from it as it creates the notion of a society and not a feudal society where people get things for nothing, creating an entitlement culture.

Where did I say I want tax exiles taxed on their income? I said they should be taxed on their assets in Ireland via property taxes.

anto9

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Lets all step back and look at the property tax for a second...
Buying a house costs a lot of money. Its far from buying a 40 inch HDTV. Which can only take a few paychecks worth of savings to pay for.

But no. The government wants to tax you for something that costs an arm and a leg. Something that can take up to 35 years to pay for.

So I ask.... Define "freedom"
Now I know that is a "first world problems" type of question. Go over to some other kip in the world and see what freedom's all about. But... the question is asked within Ireland about Ireland.

No property tax in Thailand where i own two houses (with my Thai wife )
.They do have water charges ,but that is low and i can live with it ,as water is a scarce commodity over here ,especially in the dry season where it does not rain for months on end .

twowheelsgood

leonidas83 wrote: »

What about the thousands in Stamp Duty house buyers here had to pay only a few years ago just to get on the property ladder. You wouldnt have found those levels of extortionate stamp duty in most(intelligent) other countries.

So despite Oscar clearly explaining that to cite of what happens in other countries is NOT to make the argument that we should do so because they do so, you continue to attack this (non) argument?

Mind, stamp duty is an interesting one to muse over. Granted it was pretty punitive for some buying during the boom. But I don’t think it is unreasonable to guess (and guess is all you can do) that if the exchequer did not take this bite then house prices would have edged even a little higher and those flipping houses would have made even more than they actually did. The buyer (possibly) was not going to be paying any less had stamp duty being abolished.

But I suppose if property-based business was not the cash cow that is was then maybe PS wages and welfare rates wouldn’t have accelerated and we might be better off?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No - oh so we've already been paying, you'd just like us to pay twice from now on.

Yes we have been paying before (similarly with water charges) but no, we will not pay a second time. The money that would be used will now be used for something else.

Buzz Killington the third

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Where did I say I want tax exiles taxed on their income? I said they should be taxed on their assets in Ireland via property taxes.

Lets call a spade a spade here: that's not what you were saying. You've mentioned them plenty of times talking about not paying tax in general.

Karl Stein

Gambas wrote: »

Redistribution of wealth is a hideous concept, isn't it?

It's not even redistribution - it's making those who benefit most from the economic ecosystem pay for it.

As the oft cited 'Father of Capitalism' Adam Smith said in his tome 'Wealth Of Nations':

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government [...] in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

A flat tax with no credits is the only fair form of tax. (Say) 10%, it doesn't matter if you earn 10k or 100k same rate but the bigger earner still pays far more in cash terms.

There's a good reason for progressive taxation. The wealthier a person gets the more they can avoid tax by using it to buy property, antiques/collectibles, becoming non-domicile, creative accounting, trust funds, stocks and shares etc.

I was canvassing recently for a friend and was alarmed by the number of empty houses in an affluent part of the city. You can be fairly sure that a considerable number of these empty houses are little more than wealth reservoirs. Property tax is by no means perfect (what tax is?) but as has been said it's impossible to avoid because a creative accountant simply cannot hide a house.

Spook_ie

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

Then it should be a flat rate, and not based on property value. If your property is worth more than others, it doesn't mean you'll be using the local main street any more and you certainly don't get better value for money for what you pay.

A bigger house is more likely to attract a bigger thief therefore would need a bigger Gard

Geuze

leonidas83 wrote: »

In the UK, the public sector on average is paid 7% more than their private sector counterparts, in Ireland, its 40%.

This statement is incorrect.

Using 2003 and 2006 data the ESRI found PS wages to be 8%-22% higher than in the private sector.

http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20090921103408/JACB200937.pdf


Since then there have been three paycuts.

Geuze

http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/jacb201069/jacb201069.pdf

Using 2007 data, the PS premium was found to be 10% - 15%.

Since then there have been three paycuts.

Geuze

leonidas83 wrote: »

Yes but we do pay taxes already on our income, 6% higher than the OECD average where the highest rate of tax kicks in below the average wage level.

Please note that although our top MTR does kick in at a low level, overall our income taxes are below other countries.

I know couples earning 900pw paying less than 10% income tax - where else would it be so low??