Property tax means you don't own your home.

dissed doc

sbsquarepants wrote: »

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?

The water services were not good enough and was infected for years in the west. People in Dublin didn't pay anything towards refuse collection for decades but the rest of the country did. Hospitals were staffed by people working voluntarily through the church, likewise schools.

Nobody was paying very much for any services ever in Ireland, which is why there is such a crisis and finger-pointing now.

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?

Well, policing 30 years ago didn't require the training it does now with regard to weapons and narcotics. It's not all candy floss and chocolate rivers like in your neighbourhood. Schools and hospitals as I already mentioned didn't have to be fully paid for as the church contributed a huge amount.

Tony EH

Diego Simeone wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of countries have property taxes.

Why is that this kind of shite is always brought up by someone as a reason for something like this.

So what?

twowheelsgood

Tony EH wrote: »

Why is that this kind of shite is always brought up by someone as a reason for something like this.

So what?

It's not.

When the property tax debate was raging a while back some of those opposed to it suggested that there was something fundamentally wrong with the very notion of a property tax. To sustain this argument they would need to explain why almost all countries have it in one form or another. And this is why what reference to what is done in other countries in made.

I don’t think I have come across anyone who argues that we should have a property tax (or anything else) because others have it.

Tony EH

No it wouldn't.

It doesn't matter a tinkers cuss if other countries have it or not.

Potatoeman

Tony EH wrote: »

No it wouldn't.

It doesn't matter a tinkers cuss if other countries have it or not.

Didnt we have it here in the form of rates?

Amirani

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

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.

Yes, hence why I think they should pay property taxes.

Tony EH

Housing rates actually covered a multitude of things, including waste handling and there was a certain amount of stability to them.

These new taxes are just new bills, that are set to rise and rise.

What are we getting for our house tax? Who is it going to? Who benefits?

It certainly won't be the schmucks paying it.

Buzz Killington the third

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Yes, hence why I think they should pay property taxes.

So you want the whole country to suffer the burden, just so a very small minority can pay a few hundred euro?

And even in saying that, they're already paying a few hundred euro because their properties are classified as holiday homes as they're not their primary residences.

Amirani

Tony EH wrote: »

Why is that this kind of shite is always brought up by someone as a reason for something like this.

So what?

You fairly selectively quoted me there, I wasn't using it as an argument in favour of property taxes. I was using it to form a question to the Op about whether anyone in any other country owned their property, because based on what he said they don't. Land ownership is apparently exclusive to Ireland and Malta within the EU.

Amirani

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

So you want the whole country to suffer the burden, just so a very small minority can pay a few hundred euro?

No, I want property taxes because they make economic sense. Property taxes encourage the efficient use of land and they can also act as a tax on wealth if implemented correctly. Two ideas I'm in favour of.

Tony EH

Forgive me if I picked up the sentiment wrongly, but I am just sick and tired of the "other guys do it" line, when these threads come up.

Such a redundant point.

Potatoeman

Tony EH wrote: »

Forgive me if I picked up the sentiment wrongly, but I am just sick and tired of the "other guys do it" line, when these threads come up.

Such a redundant point.

If you had to choose between higher income tax or a property tax which would you prefer?

Tony EH

Higher income tax.

That's due to more fluctuation.

The likes of your new style house tax, waste tax and your water tax aren't going to go down and they're not going to go away.

Be prepared for them to keep rising. In a few years time they'll be unrecognisable.

Potatoeman

Tony EH wrote: »

Higher income tax.

That's due to more fluctuation.

The likes of your new style house tax, waste tax and your water tax aren't going to go down and they're not going to go away.

Be prepared for them to keep rising. In a few years time they'll be unrecognisable.

Part of the idea behind property tax is to widen the tax base. So employment levels changing wont have such a large impact on revenue.

micosoft

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.

Actually fair enough - I misread your post. Of course their property assets in Ireland should be taxed.

I'd have no problem with a punitive tax on unoccupied houses as well.

Frank Lee Midere

Potatoeman wrote: »

If you had to choose between higher income tax or a property tax which would you prefer?

Anybody who is paying the higher rate of wage taxes should support property taxes unless their property is - for whatever reason - out of kilter with their income.

That's because the non tax paying poor and the non tax paying rich pay this. And they don't pay income tax. Since this is a revenue raising tax it reduces taxes on wages.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

+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.

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.

Wibbs you will be a libertarian yet

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

Wibbs you will be a libertarian yet

Over my dead body!

The Diabolical Monocle

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's actually largely the unfortunate consequence of a spineless government stupidly agreeing to nationalise the debts of a reckless and greedy private company. But sure don't let the facts get in the way of that misguided high horse of yours.

I bought my high horse with money forced on me against my will, how did you finance yours ??

Wibbs

Potatoeman wrote: »

Part of the idea behind property tax is to widen the tax base. So employment levels changing wont have such a large impact on revenue.

How are the unemployed gonna pay their property tax? If a person is not working they would pay no income tax, because they have no income. They don't have the ability to pay. You can't take trousers off a bare arse. However the same person now has a year on year tax they have near zero control over. If they can't pay they get deferred. Whoop de do. That's great, now they have an annual debt to the government building up. It wouldn't take that long to get into a situation where they could never pay it. Brilliant idea.

In an urban environment I can get by without a car so it's a tax I can avoid. I don't need ciggies and alcohol either. I have a choice. I need a house/home, house taxes remove that choice and to the tune of a fair few hundred quid a year.

Plus house prices are rising again too so the current system could really hit people badly. As it is an unemployed person in Dublin is gonna pay more, sometimes quite a bit more than an employed person in I dunno Tuam in a similar house.

Frank Lee Midere

Wibbs wrote: »

How are the unemployed gonna pay their property tax? If a person is not working they would pay no income tax, because they have no income. They don't have the ability to pay. You can't take trousers off a bare arse. However the same person now has a year on year tax they have near zero control over. If they can't pay they get deferred. Whoop de do. That's great, now they have an annual debt to the government building up. It wouldn't take that long to get into a situation where they could never pay it. Brilliant idea.

In an urban environment I can get by without a car so it's a tax I can avoid. I don't need ciggies and alcohol either. I have a choice. I need a house/home, house taxes remove that choice and to the tune of a fair few hundred quid a year.

Plus house prices are rising again too so the current system could really hit people badly. As it is an unemployed person in Dublin is gonna pay more, sometimes quite a bit more than an employed person in I dunno Tuam in a similar house.

He's paying more because he has a greater asset.

The number of unemployed owing large amounts of tax on large houses would be close to zero. In general property wealth and wealth are coexistant. The unemployed guy with the large house must have earned big money at one stage. He can probably do it again.

Plus it's deferred.

I have the worlds smallest violin for people with large assets they haven't managed to monetise. The rental increases in Dublin alone cost people in the rental sector more per month in the last year than this tax on millionaire property per year.

Smallest violin.

sbsquarepants

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

I bought my high horse with money forced on me against my will, how did you finance yours ??

I don't have one.
But seeing as your so keen to unburden yourself of that money, i'll take it off you no problem. May as well give it to me as to some mystery billionaire. If it makes you feel better, I'll concoct you some bullshít story about what I'm going to do with it and why you need to pay for that.

Wibbs

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

The number of unemployed owing large amounts of tax on large houses would be close to zero. In general property wealth and wealth are coexistant. The unemployed guy with the large house must have earned big money at one stage. He can probably do it again.

Not really. EG if someone bought a house in the 90's when prices were significantly lower than even today post boom, it would have been affordable then, but not now. Many people working in the construction industry during the boom were making very good money, enough to buy a nice house, now that industry has a lot of unemployed or underemployed people. It doesn't have to be a "large house" either. I personally know three people in such circumstances. I doubt I'd be alone in that.

Plus it's deferred.

So said debt builds up.

I have the worlds smallest violin for people with large assets they haven't managed to monetise.

This is just my humble now, but I don't see a primary home as an asset. Not an asset to be monetised anyway. That way of thinking is what scuppered us royally on a few levels during the boom and will do so again. It's a lot of the thinking behind the rent/buy debate too.

UCDVet

(not sure if someone has said this already but...)

I'm not sure why people are so upset about this concept of 'ownership'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've still got 'Compulsory purchase' on the books. Nothing new here, even without the tax, you *cannot* actually 'own' property in Ireland. You can own it, so long as the government doesn't decide there is a higher purpose to be served. Then, they can take it.

Potatoeman

Wibbs wrote: »

Not really. EG if someone bought a house in the 90's when prices were significantly lower than even today post boom, it would have been affordable then, but not now. Many people working in the construction industry during the boom were making very good money, enough to buy a nice house, now that industry has a lot of unemployed or underemployed people. It doesn't have to be a "large house" either. I personally know three people in such circumstances. I doubt I'd be alone in that.

So said debt builds up.

This is just my humble now, but I don't see a primary home as an asset. Not an asset to be monetised anyway. That way of thinking is what scuppered us royally on a few levels during the boom and will do so again. It's a lot of the thinking behind the rent/buy debate too.

They should still have to contribute though. If you have a large house in a nice area and are long term unemployed you are going to have financial problems anyway.

Tony EH

Wibbs wrote: »

This is just my humble now, but I don't see a primary home as an asset. Not an asset to be monetised anyway. That way of thinking is what scuppered us royally on a few levels during the boom and will do so again. It's a lot of the thinking behind the rent/buy debate too.

Exactly.

The vast majority of people buy a home. They don't buy an "asset". :rolleyes:

jimgoose

Wibbs wrote: »

...This is just my humble now, but I don't see a primary home as an asset. Not an asset to be monetised anyway. That way of thinking is what scuppered us royally on a few levels during the boom and will do so again. It's a lot of the thinking behind the rent/buy debate too.

This. We need to move away from this mindset of every second knobjockey becoming a "Property" bajillionaire and get it back into our cliggeens that the purpose of a house is to prevent your crap from falling out onto the road.

sbsquarepants

Wibbs wrote: »

This is just my humble now, but I don't see a primary home as an asset. Not an asset to be monetised anyway. That way of thinking is what scuppered us royally on a few levels during the boom and will do so again. It's a lot of the thinking behind the rent/buy debate too.

Tony EH wrote: »

Exactly.

The vast majority of people buy a home. They don't buy an "asset". :rolleyes:

I agree with the sentiment up to a point alright, but shít happens and you have to change your set up sometimes. If you own, either by purchasing yourself or inheritance, a home worth x amount and you fall on hard times for whatever reason you should monetise it if possible. You could sell it and get something cheaper perhaps, or rent it out and rent something cheaper if you don't want to actually get rid of it. To say your family home just can't be monetised is not accurate.

Chips Lovell

Even if you have a house worth half a million, your annual liability is €472. Which is less than a tenner a week. Nobody is going to be upping sticks and selling their house.

UCDVet

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Even if you have a house worth half a million, your annual liability is €472. Which is less than a tenner a week. Nobody is going to be upping sticks and selling their house.

That's true now, sure. But that's generally how new taxes always begin. It's just a small tax! You'll hardly notice it all. Just a mere 472 per year, hardly even 40 euro per month.

Getting the first tax on the books is always the hardest. They have to pass the laws and setup the infrastructure. Find out who owns what. Heck, they deducted LPT from my paycheck for a building I don't own, without even contacting me. It took me months to get my money refunded. But now that they've got everyone logged in their books and they have the ability to take payment...it'll be much, much easier to revise the numbers. Just a small increase here, just a small increase there. They'll probably rework the pricing/valuation bands a few time, so they can raise the total tax generated while still assuring people the new system will be 'more fair' and will only increase some small amount for the average working family.

In 20 years, it'll just seem perfectly natural that everyone pay property tax. The idea of not paying it will just seem silly. 'Of course, we have to pay taxes, of course - how else could it be?'

In June, 2035, do you honestly think that the tax burden will remain at the 0.0944% the 472 euro per 500k per year? I'd bet my soul it won't.

The water tax is a prime example, it hasn't even started and the expected price we'll pay has doubled.

The tv license... in 1964 they sold 231k licences @ 4 pounds. Adjusted for inflation that is 20,441,190 pounds or 25,222,514 euro. 25 million euro. That's a lot.

What about today? 2012 they sold 1 million licenses @ 160 euro. That's 160 million euro.

These numbers are adjusted for inflation
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1633409/Historic-inflation-calculator-value-money-changed-1900.html

That means, we're collectively paying 6.4 times more for a TV license now than we did in 1964. That's despite amazing technological advances that reduces the cost of producing television shows. And as staggering as 6.4 times the income is - I mean - seriously - stop and think about how much you earn. Now double it. Imagine what lifestyle you could afford with 2x your salary. NOW DOUBLE THAT - and it's 4x your salary. For most people they've gone from 'average earner' to 'upper, upper, middle class'. From bag boy to surgeon. And that's only 4x. The TV license has had a 6.4x increase....

And is RTE just loaded with all this money? No. If you give them one euro, they'll spend 1.1 euro and come back complaining about their debts. No, they're pushing to change the licensing scheme so that everyone will be forced to pay it because, that 6.4 increase just isn't enough. They need more. Each increase is just a small one. But over the years, this is what happens.

Property tax rates will only go up. And the revenue it generates will quickly be spent and we'll be in the same spot we're in now.

Chips Lovell

You're falling victim to the slippery slope fallacy there.

Taxes go down as well as up.

UCDVet

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

You're falling victim to the slippery slope fallacy there.

Taxes go down as well as up.

Buy a lotto ticket. You could win. You could lose. Taxes can go up and they can go down. But let's not pretend they both happen with equal regularity

Chips Lovell

I don't know about you, but I saw my taxes fall considerably before the last recession. Given that tax cuts tend to get people elected, I'd expect it to happen again once we can afford to.

AlexisM

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Even if you have a house worth half a million, your annual liability is €472.

That's the amount for half a year (2013)

UCDVet wrote: »

In June, 2035, do you honestly think that the tax burden will remain at the 0.0944% the 472 euro per 500k per year?

The rate is 0.18%.

sbsquarepants

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

You're falling victim to the slippery slope fallacy there.

Taxes go down as well as up.

Individual taxes go down as well as up.
Taxes, ie the overall amount the government takes out of your pocket each year, I would hazard a guess that that tends to only go one way. It's only a guess, and seeing as we're talking fallacies it's probably a biased guessed, but I'd like to see if there is any actual statistics on it.

UCDVet

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

I don't know about you, but I saw my taxes fall considerably before the last recession. Given that tax cuts tend to get people elected, I'd expect it to happen again once we can afford to.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/personal-income-tax-rate
From 48% to 41% back up to 48% by my count.

Still, I feel like there is a considerable difference between changing the rate and introducing a new tax. Can you remember any taxes being abolished (that apply to 'regular people', not highly specific taxes on business or industry).

AlexisM

UCDVet wrote: »

...
The tv license... in 1964 they sold 231k licences @ 4 pounds. Adjusted for inflation that is 20,441,190 pounds or 25,222,514 euro. 25 million euro. That's a lot.

What about today? 2012 they sold 1 million licenses @ 160 euro. That's 160 million euro.
That means, we're collectively paying 6.4 times more for a TV license now than we did in 1964. That's despite amazing technological advances that reduces the cost of producing television shows. And as staggering as 6.4 times the income is - I mean - seriously - stop and think about how much you earn. Now double it. Imagine what lifestyle you could afford with 2x your salary. NOW DOUBLE THAT - and it's 4x your salary. For most people they've gone from 'average earner' to 'upper, upper, middle class'. From bag boy to surgeon. And that's only 4x. The TV license has had a 6.4x increase....

Well aren't we lucky then that incomes have gone up by income inflation and not by CPI/RPI inflation... I make it that a TV licence cost just over 0.5% of annual average wages in 1964 and just under 0.5% of annual average wages in 2013. Not such a staggering change really is it? Although maybe you are now staggered that it has (relatively speaking) gone down ...

AlexisM

UCDVet wrote: »

Still, I feel like there is a considerable difference between changing the rate and introducing a new tax. Can you remember any taxes being abolished (that apply to 'regular people', not highly specific taxes on business or industry).

Rates in 1977? The previous residential property tax abolished in 1997?

Chips Lovell

NPPR and Probate Tax are two more that spring to mind.

grundie

I have no problem paying a local council tax. I think calling it the Local Property Tax was stupid though, they should have just called it Council Tax given that's what its for.

The problem I have is that the government is double dipping. At he moment a small proportion of our income tax goes to local councils. Seeing as that they are going to be getting paid directly through LPT, does that means our income tax burden will be slightly reduced? I doubt it.

Also, in the UK when you get your council tax bill it comes with three pamphlets. One from the council, one from the local constabulary and one from the local fire brigade. The pamphlets tell you what they spent their portion of council tax on in the previous year and what they plan to spend it on in the coming year. I think we need that here too.

Phoebas

grundie wrote: »

The problem I have is that the government is double dipping. At he moment a small proportion of our income tax goes to local councils. Seeing as that they are going to be getting paid directly through LPT, does that means our income tax burden will be slightly reduced? I doubt it.

We're currently partially funding local authority services by borrowing. That, at least, will be slightly reduced.
Before we were borrowing to fund local authority services, we were partially funding them through property transaction taxes. That tax was massively reduced.

micosoft

UCDVet wrote: »

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/personal-income-tax-rate
From 48% to 41% back up to 48% by my count.

Still, I feel like there is a considerable difference between changing the rate and introducing a new tax. Can you remember any taxes being abolished (that apply to 'regular people', not highly specific taxes on business or industry).

Such short memories - W e d i d e x a c t l y t h i s. We abolished rates when de People allowed themselves to be bought voted for Fianna Fail in 1977. This was a property tax that applied to everyone and this populist measure led directly to the tax crisis we had over the past five years. So we do abolish taxes except usually for dumb populist reasons.

If we had rates we would not have had to introduce the tax hikes on income tax as we would have had a stable tax take from property, not one based on house sales and people borrowing money to pay for stamp duty.

Geuze

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Individual taxes go down as well as up.
Taxes, ie the overall amount the government takes out of your pocket each year, I would hazard a guess that that tends to only go one way. It's only a guess, and seeing as we're talking fallacies it's probably a biased guessed, but I'd like to see if there is any actual statistics on it.

Total taxes collected

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-16062014-BP/EN/2-16062014-BP-EN.PDF

2002 = 28.3% of GDP

2011 = 28.2%

2012 = 28.7%

Geuze

grundie wrote: »

I have no problem paying a local council tax. I think calling it the Local Property Tax was stupid though, they should have just called it Council Tax given that's what its for.

The problem I have is that the government is double dipping. At he moment a small proportion of our income tax goes to local councils. Seeing as that they are going to be getting paid directly through LPT, does that means our income tax burden will be slightly reduced? I doubt it.

No, as the whole point of the LPT and water charges is to broaden the tax base to help reduce the fiscal deficit.

Pay more tax
Same services as before
Less borrowing

Geuze

grundie wrote: »

I
Also, in the UK when you get your council tax bill it comes with three pamphlets. One from the council, one from the local constabulary and one from the local fire brigade. The pamphlets tell you what they spent their portion of council tax on in the previous year and what they plan to spend it on in the coming year. I think we need that here too.

Irish Local Govt accounts are here:

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/LocalGovernment/Administration/FileDownLoad,33956,en.pdf