Spare a thought for the leafy suburbs...

daheff

mickman wrote: »

house is worth 600k ? Sell it and buy a small apartment

McGrath5 wrote: »

Is there a reason why your mother will not downsize?

ted1 wrote: »

So you think that someone who has lived there whole life in an area, who's family and support network all live locally should sell their house and move to a different county? So what if the house is 3 times the national average. It might still be the cheapest house in the local area.
No one should be forced out of an area, based on property speculation.
Until you sell your house it's only worth what you paid for it.

I agree totally with the above posts. Why should you have to move home because of a tax on the value of your house? A value which you have no influence over.

ted1 wrote: »

She may also have a huge mortgage which might make the house a liability as oppose to asset.

A high value house in no way reflects wealth.

Excellent point ted. Net disposable income is a fairer way to tax for people who have already purchased houses and are sitting on negative equity because of the crash. However for people buying after the tax is introduced then taxing on the disposable income is unfair as you would have people deliberately trying to minimise their taxes by reducing taxable income.

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Indeed, I pay council tax in the UK at a rate of 2.5 times what I'd pay in Ireland.

but you get a lot more for your council tax than we do. You get free healthcare (including GP)...we don't. Unfair comparison

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Sorry but the LPT isn't short sighted at all, it's very long sighted if anything.

I disagree. By taxing on the value of the house, its directing builders to build smaller houses (eg lower value) as that's what people will demand (so they pay less taxes). Over time we'll be left with small pokey houses in the country. Similar to when property investor incentives encouraged apartment building...we ended up with a load of one bed apartments unsuitable for living in, just so the builders could build more apartments for the investors.

gaius c wrote: »

I'm a bit fed up of asset-rich, cash-poor people setting up the system to suit themselves so that PAYE workers can get screwed.
It's a tax on wealth. If you don't have the liquidity to pay it, address it.

But in fairness everybody paid tax(es) on the purchase of the property in the first place. You paid stamp duty on the purchase of the property and VAT on new builds.


I think a fairer tax would be a tax per head of population. I think it should be paid to a central pot to allow a fair distribution of the fund so every council can provide services to their constituents.

Michael D Not Higgins

Larbre34 wrote: »

Thats a political matter between you and your representatives. There are so many differences in the revenue systems in Britain and Ireland that highlighting one element alone tells very of the story.

I know what you're getting at but what I'm saying is that the property tax is not debilitatingly expensive. It's a modest charge. I have a problem with it varying with the whims of the property market which is very much in flux at the moment. I would have prefered that the went for a similar system to the UK where the prices were set and you were allocated a band and the variances in house price year to year didn't dictate your tax due.

Nonetheless, I agree with gauis, this is entirely a wealth tax. If you can't afford your assets, you can't keep them. There have been a number of good points made by people here which I needn't reiterate.

jp101

LPT can be deferred for income reasons. So your granny can both not pay and stay in the house.

Larbre34

gaius c wrote: »

I'm a bit fed up of asset-rich, cash-poor people setting up the system to suit themselves so that PAYE workers can get screwed.

It's a tax on wealth. If you don't have the liquidity to pay it, address it.

Asset rich meaning mortgage cleared? Cash poor meaning on a pension? Assets only mean wealth if they are readily realisable.

The same folk that were PAYE workers in their time, including the disgusting rates of the 1980s.

If they were setting up the system to suit themselves, they certainly would have got busy with it earlier in life........

Michael D Not Higgins

daheff wrote: »

but you get a lot more for your council tax than we do. You get free healthcare (including GP)...we don't. Unfair comparison

Haha what? Council tax does not fund healthcare. That's funded centrally not locally.

Edit: Council tax does pay for bin collection which when deducting the average from the rate I pay, equates to still double what I'd pay in Ireland.

Ush1

Non-story in my opinion.

She's speculating wildly on the property prices rising(that always works well) and clearly just paying lip service to her own constituents.

As others have said, it's a wealth tax, not a tax on income.

MarkAnthony

daheff wrote: »

I agree totally with the above posts. Why should you have to move home because of a tax on the value of your house? A value which you have no influence over.

Because the LPT leads to more stable house prices in the long term rather than a boom bust cycle.

daheff wrote: »

Excellent point ted. Net disposable income is a fairer way to tax for people who have already purchased houses and are sitting on negative equity because of the crash. However for people buying after the tax is introduced then taxing on the disposable income is unfair as you would have people deliberately trying to minimise their taxes by reducing taxable income.

Of course getting rid of all taxes and simply applying a flat rate of income tax is fairer again. There are public policy reasons why we don't do this.

daheff wrote: »

but you get a lot more for your council tax than we do. You get free healthcare (including GP)...we don't. Unfair comparison

Sorry if this is misquoted to you. the NHS predates the council tax. It's not an unfair comparison really. It works in England and Wales where it's based of property value and, of course, rightly allowances are made for the unemployed, pensioners and people living on their own.

daheff wrote: »

I disagree. By taxing on the value of the house, its directing builders to build smaller houses (eg lower value) as that's what people will demand (so they pay less taxes). Over time we'll be left with small pokey houses in the country. Similar to when property investor incentives encouraged apartment building...we ended up with a load of one bed apartments unsuitable for living in, just so the builders could build more apartments for the investors.

This is countered by any number of factors including, market demand and building regulations.

daheff wrote: »

But in fairness everybody paid tax(es) on the purchase of the property in the first place. You paid stamp duty on the purchase of the property and VAT on new builds.

I've absolutely no issues with these being abolished, again it would help market liquidity.

daheff wrote: »

I think a fairer tax would be a tax per head of population. I think it should be paid to a central pot to allow a fair distribution of the fund so every council can provide services to their constituents.

See income tax argument, which I don't wholly disagree with in fairness.

jon1981

jp101 wrote: »

LPT can be deferred for income reasons. So your granny can both not pay and stay in the house.

Problem solved, owner can't pay, owner gets LPT deferred, LPT builds up over time, owner dies, house gets sold, LPT is paid and everybody is happy, right? Owner got to stay, Revenue got their money eventually.

oh wait, we didn't drive the owner out of the home...dammit!!!

MarkAnthony

jon1981 wrote: »

Problem solved, owner can't pay, owner gets LPT deferred, LPT builds up over time, owner dies, house gets sold, LPT is paid and everybody is happy, right? Owner got to stay, Revenue got their money eventually.

oh wait, we didn't drive the owner out of the home...dammit!!!

No one is ever happy paying tax.

That said needs have to be balanced, IMHO this isn't a good way of doing it LPT should be paid as it falls due. That said I can see the benefits of doing it this way. It might also encourage children to take on the responsibility of caring for an elderly relative, if they choose to and provides a tax benefit.

Granny sells house, family home so not subject to CGT. Money can then be used to help fund her care, only the remainder is subject to inheritance tax and there is no build up of LPT.

I'm not saying everyone does this but some of the estate sales you see out there, where it's clear an elderly relative has been living without the house being upgraded or even som much as redecorated since the 80s is just sad.

daveyeh

Tabnabs wrote: »

Many of these properties are owned by retired people who have limited means to afford any increase.

They could move...

daveyeh

Larbre34 wrote: »

Tell you what, I'll let you pop around and mention to her that purely because she is being treated so unfairly by the Government, she should give up her home of 48 years, where she lived her life with her now departed husband and raised her kids and that has the garden that keeps her so active and gives her so much pleasure.

Less cretinous responses please.

Are property taxes not supposed to encourage people to move on to properties more suitable for their needs? Or am I being cretinous?

daveyeh

jon1981 wrote: »

Question, can an elderly person sitting on a 600k home defer all property tax until their death when the house is inherited? If so, that's reasonable.

Yes, by not paying.

daveyeh

site designer wrote: »

The tax is theft

:rolleyes:

Grow up

Sleepy

To balance the books, we can either tax wealth (assets), income or cut spending.

Since income tax is already a disincentive to work and there wouldn't appear to be an awful lot more room for spending cuts, it's time for assets to be taxed. Personally, I'd like to see this done in the form of substantially higher capital gains, gift and inheritance taxes rather than taxing primary principal residences but an element of the latter should be included imo.

ted1

Sleepy wrote: »

To balance the books, we can either tax wealth (assets), income or cut spending.

Since income tax is already a disincentive to work and there wouldn't appear to be an awful lot more room for spending cuts, it's time for assets to be taxed. Personally, I'd like to see this done in the form of substantially higher capital gains, gift and inheritance taxes rather than taxing primary principal residences but an element of the latter should be included imo.

Cut spending.

Barely Hedged

Larbre34 wrote: »

she is being treated so unfairly by the Government

Nothing personal about this tax

Larbre34 wrote: »

she should give up her home of 48 years.

By the same token, should the taxation system remain static for 48 years or should it adapt to the changing needs of the country?

Larbre34 wrote: »

where she lived her life with her now departed husband and raised her kids and that has the garden that keeps her so active and gives her so much pleasure.

Less cretinous responses please.

Sorry, but with all respect, this is just emotive padding.

triple nipple

McGrath5 wrote:

Is there a reason why your mother will not downsize?

Why should she have to ? its her house !

daveyeh

triple nipple wrote: »

Why should she have to ? its her house !

She doesn't have to. But if she doesn't want to be liable to large amounts of property tax, she should.

jon1981

daveyeh wrote: »

She doesn't have to. But if she doesn't want to be liable to large amounts of property tax, she should.

Tis grand sure, it will be paid when she passes on.

professore

Larbre34 wrote: »

Tell you what, I'll let you pop around and mention to her that purely because she is being treated so unfairly by the Government, she should give up her home of 48 years, where she lived her life with her now departed husband and raised her kids and that has the garden that keeps her so active and gives her so much pleasure.

Less cretinous responses please.

Sorry, but it's not a cretinous response as you put it. There are lots of young working families who are taxed to the gills and living in small apartments. Your mum is wealthy and should be taxed appropriately.

When we get to 65 (or 75 at the rate the age is increasing) we won't have a fraction of the benefits we are paying for and our parents are currently enjoying.

And I've got a mum living in a house on her own in a similar situation, except it's not worth anywhere near 600K. She won't move either - but will be forced to sooner or later due to old age. It may sound heartless but you have to live in the real world.

daveyeh

jon1981 wrote: »

Tis grand sure, it will be paid when she passes on.

Some oldies don't like leaving behind debts for some reason. Weirdos.

enda1

France (and I'm sure other countries too) have this great equity release form of house sale. You basically sell your house to someone in the form that the house becomes theirs but they pay a lump sum at the start of say 30% of house value then a salary to you for as long as you live. That way you get to live in your home till you die but also have the cash to live with and maintain the home and pay your taxes while still having a lump sum to invest and pass on through a will if wished to your children.

For the buyer, they are basically morbidly gambling on your life expectancy which is kinda funny!

Larbre34

daveyeh wrote: »

Are property taxes not supposed to encourage people to move on to properties more suitable for their needs? Or am I being cretinous?

No, you're not. And no, they aren't, unless you're into communism.

My mothers house will be re-sold into the marketplace when she passes on, or else one of my family will live in it with their family, and free up their current home.

Meanwhile I don't see any sort of tax as being justification for causing her distress by compelling her to leave a home she worked hard to keep and is happy in.

Larbre34

Barely Hedged wrote: »

Nothing personal about this tax

Tell that to the people paying 8 or 9 times what their relatives pay in rural towns.

By the same token, should the taxation system remain static for 48 years or should it adapt to the changing needs of the country?

It should adapt of course, a lot of progress has been made. This doesn't count as progress, it counts as duress.

Sorry, but with all respect, this is just emotive padding

I said it earlier, its a societal question as much as a economic one. I wouldn't called people in real distress emotive padding. I really hope our public representatives don't share your outlook either.

professore

Larbre34 wrote: »

No, you're not. And no, they aren't, unless you're into communism.

My mothers house will be re-sold into the marketplace when she passes on, or else one of my family will live in it with their family, and free up their current home.

Meanwhile I don't see any sort of tax as being justification for causing her distress by compelling her to leave a home she worked hard to keep and is happy in.

Seriously? A 600K house? On her own? Who is going to take care of her when she gets more infirm - which she will?

I've been through the mill with all this the past several years. It's not realistic to expect to live in a big expensive house when you get older. What happens if it needs repairs for example? Big bucks to fix a big house. How will she handle that? Heating bills etc are also big with a big house.

All the above assumes she is not well off cash wise - since if she is she should just shut up and pay the tax !

Presumably she and your dad must have been very comfortable to be able to afford a big house worth 600K - can she not pay out of whatever pension pot she presumably has?

Assume she sells the house - and buys an apartment or smaller house for 200K. That leaves her with 400K. Assume she lives 20 years. That's 20K per year for 20 years, plus the state pension, for one person. Life of Reilly.

If she needs to go in a nursing home for 10 of those years - under the Fair Deal scheme the State will take a big chunk of that house off her.

Them's the facts. And as I said, I've got a widowed mum too - and you might as well talk to the wall as try to convince her of any of it. I see your point - it is sad - but so is life.

MarkAnthony

Larbre34 wrote: »

No, you're not. And no, they aren't, unless you're into communism.

Far from communism. There would be two families in there with her if it was. Why not rent a few rooms out to cover the tax?

Larbre34 wrote: »

Tell that to the people paying 8 or 9 times what their relatives pay in rural towns.

Of course it is.

Larbre34 wrote: »

It should adapt of course, a lot of progress has been made. This doesn't count as progress, it counts as duress.

I said it earlier, its a societal question as much as a economic one. I wouldn't called people in real distress emotive padding. I really hope our public representatives don't share your outlook either.

Perhaps not, but what about the person trying to bring up a family in a two bed apartment? It's not a case of simply telling them to be more successful, wealth is being concentrated in the older generation, there has to be a mechanism of redistribution.

Want to know the only worse form of economic policy than communism, unchecked capitalism.

pwurple

professore wrote: »

And I've got a mum living in a house on her own in a similar situation, except it's not worth anywhere near 600K. She won't move either - but will be forced to sooner or later due to old age. It may sound heartless but you have to live in the real world.

Is anyone taking a step back and thinking about whether this is a good thing to do for society or not?

Why do we actually want old people to move away from their supports, friends and families to an unfamiliar environment before their natural lifespan is up? What's the societal benefit to uprooting pensioners?

They will require more govt care when there isn't a friendly neighbour to pop in and check them. More transport if they are miles from the bus. More health costs, more stress on our systems.


I can see the population of boardsies (people mainly in their 20's 30's) getting all clammy-eyed at the thought of property freeing up where these current annoyances are living, instead of having to wait for the old dears to hit the cemetery. But is that it? You want what they have, and you want it now?

Michael D Not Higgins

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Far from communism. There would be two families in there with her if it was. Why not rent a few rooms out to cover the tax?

A single lodger would cover the tax due several times over.

Michael D Not Higgins

pwurple wrote: »

I can see the population of boardsies (people mainly in their 20's 30's) getting all clammy-eyed at the thought of property freeing up where these current annoyances are living, instead of having to wait for the old dears to hit the cemetery. But is that it? You want what they have, and you want it now?

We've already covered this. It can be deferred til the sale of the property if it's such an imposition on the current occupant.

murphaph

Sleepy wrote: »

To balance the books, we can either tax wealth (assets), income or cut spending.

Since income tax is already a disincentive to work and there wouldn't appear to be an awful lot more room for spending cuts, it's time for assets to be taxed. Personally, I'd like to see this done in the form of substantially higher capital gains, gift and inheritance taxes rather than taxing primary principal residences but an element of the latter should be included imo.

We already have punitive rates of inheritance tax.

pwurple

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

We've already covered this. It can be deferred til the sale of the property if it's such an imposition on the current occupant.

And the rest of my post you ignored?

ted1

professore wrote: »

Seriously? A 600K house? On her own? Who is going to take care of her when she gets more infirm - which she will?

I've been through the mill with all this the past several years. It's not realistic to expect to live in a big expensive house when you get older. What happens if it needs repairs for example? Big bucks to fix a big house. How will she handle that? Heating bills etc are also big with a big house.

All the above assumes she is not well off cash wise - since if she is she should just shut up and pay the tax !

Presumably she and your dad must have been very comfortable to be able to afford a big house worth 600K - can she not pay out of whatever pension pot she presumably has?

Assume she sells the house - and buys an apartment or smaller house for 200K. That leaves her with 400K. Assume she lives 20 years. That's 20K per year for 20 years, plus the state pension, for one person. Life of Reilly.

If she needs to go in a nursing home for 10 of those years - under the Fair Deal scheme the State will take a big chunk of that house off her.

Them's the facts. And as I said, I've got a widowed mum too - and you might as well talk to the wall as try to convince her of any of it. I see your point - it is sad - but so is life.

Housrd for 600k are not really big, houses for 150 in the country could well be bigger

professore

pwurple wrote: »

Is anyone taking a step back and thinking about whether this is a good thing to do for society or not?

Why do we actually want old people to move away from their supports, friends and families to an unfamiliar environment before their natural lifespan is up? What's the societal benefit to uprooting pensioners?

They will require more govt care when there isn't a friendly neighbour to pop in and check them. More transport if they are miles from the bus. More health costs, more stress on our systems.


I can see the population of boardsies (people mainly in their 20's 30's) getting all clammy-eyed at the thought of property freeing up where these current annoyances are living, instead of having to wait for the old dears to hit the cemetery. But is that it? You want what they have, and you want it now?

I just took a day off work yesterday. Drove from Cork to Laois, picked up my mum, drove another hour and a half to Tullamore for an eye exam - nowhere nearer provided by the HSE, drove another hour back to Laois, stayed an hour, then drove another 2 hours back to Cork. All in all a days work lost, six hours driving because my mum wants to stay in her current house. No buses or public transport anywhere in sight. Is this sustainable?

Larbre34

professore wrote: »

Seriously? A 600K house? On her own? Who is going to take care of her when she gets more infirm - which she will?

I've been through the mill with all this the past several years. It's not realistic to expect to live in a big expensive house when you get older. What happens if it needs repairs for example? Big bucks to fix a big house. How will she handle that? Heating bills etc are also big with a big house.

All the above assumes she is not well off cash wise - since if she is she should just shut up and pay the tax !

Presumably she and your dad must have been very comfortable to be able to afford a big house worth 600K - can she not pay out of whatever pension pot she presumably has?

Assume she sells the house - and buys an apartment or smaller house for 200K. That leaves her with 400K. Assume she lives 20 years. That's 20K per year for 20 years, plus the state pension, for one person. Life of Reilly.

If she needs to go in a nursing home for 10 of those years - under the Fair Deal scheme the State will take a big chunk of that house off her.

Them's the facts. And as I said, I've got a widowed mum too - and you might as well talk to the wall as try to convince her of any of it. I see your point - it is sad - but so is life.

You presume wrong, it was a very average family home when bought in the late 60's, it was bought with a gifted deposit and paid off mostly on an average income. My fathers pension was repackaged and gutted over the years for various reasons, it pays her sod all now.

As I said at the outset, she did pay the LPT out of savings for the first two years, no doubt she will again, but its hard for her to replace those savings and she has no idea where the LPT amount will actually end, or even peak! Thats the crux of the issue.

When we need to cross the bridge of fair deal or taking care of her ourselves, she has no problem with selling the house then as she will be infirm. As of now she is in good health and is quite fond of her home and her neighbours and her community thanks very much!

irelandrover

pwurple wrote: »

Is anyone taking a step back and thinking about whether this is a good thing to do for society or not?

Why do we actually want old people to move away from their supports, friends and families to an unfamiliar environment before their natural lifespan is up? What's the societal benefit to uprooting pensioners?

They will require more govt care when there isn't a friendly neighbour to pop in and check them. More transport if they are miles from the bus. More health costs, more stress on our systems.


I can see the population of boardsies (people mainly in their 20's 30's) getting all clammy-eyed at the thought of property freeing up where these current annoyances are living, instead of having to wait for the old dears to hit the cemetery. But is that it? You want what they have, and you want it now?

Because having to leave a 5 bedroom house does not mean having to move out of an area. You can move into smaller accommodation in that area.

If a person cannot afford to pay the tax on a house they cannot afford to maintain it sufficiently. They cannot afford to heat it sufficiently. The house gets damaged and loses value.

Older people moving out of family homes into more suitable accommodation can be good for everyone involved.

Michael D Not Higgins

pwurple wrote: »

And the rest of my post you ignored?

The rest of your post isn't an issue if they can stay in their home.

pwurple

professore wrote: »

I just took a day off work yesterday. Drove from Cork to Laois, picked up my mum, drove another hour and a half to Tullamore for an eye exam - nowhere nearer provided by the HSE, drove another hour back to Laois, stayed an hour, then drove another 2 hours back to Cork. All in all a days work lost, six hours driving because my mum wants to stay in her current house. No buses or public transport anywhere in sight. Is this sustainable?

I have no idea why your mother lives in frikken Laois.... >? That's where the rest of these people want to move the old people into.

I heartily agree that commutes and living where there are no damn services is ridiculous. Your mother's situation is the opposite of what should be encouraged.


I actually agree with a property tax in general. Rates should never have been removed. But the bigger picture is very important, as these taxes encourage certain behaviours. just like the good old plastic bag tax encouraged us to get rid of disposable bags, this tax should be directed towards enouraging something good.

Encouraging elderly people to remain in city center property, to my mind is a good idea. They have what they need around them, and don't need to pester their families to drive for 6 hours to random places. Booting them out of high-value property in a central location is a bit silly. Encouraging people to live in cities, is a much better civic proposal.

Here's what I'd like to encourage with these taxes:

People living in cities
-easier to provide transport
-easier to provide infrastructure
-easier to provide healthcare


I'd also like to encourage greener living, so I'd like to see smaller, greener homes, in a central location (less fuel for transport) being given a lower tax rate.


The battering-ram approach of value-based "wealth-distribution" is completely pointless. It encourages mansions in the sticks, and discourages city-center living.

professore

pwurple wrote: »

I have no idea why your mother lives in frikken Laois.... >? That's where the rest of these people want to move the old people into.

She grew up there and lived there all her life with neighbours she knows and who look in on her and a nice garden etc etc .... the same arguments Larbre34 was making for his mum.

MarkAnthony

pwurple wrote: »

Is anyone taking a step back and thinking about whether this is a good thing to do for society or not?

Of course they are!

-Poorer people can't access accommodation in the major urban areas because of cost and lack of social housing, we'll park the fact that many older people bought their social housing at bargain basement rates, that's not their fault I would have too.

Due to the lack of being able to live in areas with work they remain on the dole, causing a greater drain on resources.

-Middle of the road people can only afford to buy an apartment or small house meaning they can't chose to have a family or if they do are doing so in far from ideal conditions.

-Higher earners are being forced (my heart bleeds :pac:) out of the traditionally more affluent areas putting more pressure on the above group.

-Very high earners are thinking bugger this I'm paying 53% income tax to support this sodding mess.

This is not down to one persons Granny but is illustrative of the broken system here in Ireland that has to change. Of course serial benefit riders need to be moved out of urban areas as well, but that's a different topic.

pwurple wrote: »

Why do we actually want old people to move away from their supports, friends and families to an unfamiliar environment before their natural lifespan is up? What's the societal benefit to uprooting pensioners?

They will require more govt care when there isn't a friendly neighbour to pop in and check them. More transport if they are miles from the bus. More health costs, more stress on our systems.

People don't want this. But this is an infrastructure issue. Apartments need to be available in areas where people have spent their life as an option.

That said imagine if Ballymun had been a massive retirement community rather than somewhere to dump families as there was no where else for them to go. On a smaller scales this has worked in Scotland with amazing communities sprouting up.

The social benefit is one person living on their own is inconvenienced for the benefit of a family of 4 or more. Alternatively avail of the rent a room scheme and pay the property tax with money to spare tax free.

pwurple wrote: »

I can see the population of boardsies (people mainly in their 20's 30's) getting all clammy-eyed at the thought of property freeing up where these current annoyances are living, instead of having to wait for the old dears to hit the cemetery. But is that it? You want what they have, and you want it now?

It's not a case of taking anything off of anyone, they keep all of the wealth unless they chose to stay asset rich and cash poor. It helps no one, including them in many cases. With an aging population which is getting richer and richer something has to be done when the average family with two working people can't afford to bring up a family.

gaius c

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

A single lodger would cover the tax due several times over.

I pay more tax on my car than these people do on their houses and the car bloody depreciates.

professore

pwurple wrote: »

I have no idea why your mother lives in frikken Laois.... >? That's where the rest of these people want to move the old people into.

I heartily agree that commutes and living where there are no damn services is ridiculous. Your mother's situation is the opposite of what should be encouraged.


I actually agree with a property tax in general. Rates should never have been removed. But the bigger picture is very important, as these taxes encourage certain behaviours. just like the good old plastic bag tax encouraged us to get rid of disposable bags, this tax should be directed towards enouraging something good.

Encouraging elderly people to remain in city center property, to my mind is a good idea. They have what they need around them, and don't need to pester their families to drive for 6 hours to random places. Booting them out of high-value property in a central location is a bit silly. Encouraging people to live in cities, is a much better civic proposal.

Here's what I'd like to encourage with these taxes:

People living in cities
-easier to provide transport
-easier to provide infrastructure
-easier to provide healthcare


I'd also like to encourage greener living, so I'd like to see smaller, greener homes, in a central location (less fuel for transport) being given a lower tax rate.


The battering-ram approach of value-based "wealth-distribution" is completely pointless. It encourages mansions in the sticks, and discourages city-center living.

I actually think we need retirement suburbs and villages around Ireland. People from "the country" won't want to be bundled in with Dubs or whatever.

Somewhere with shops and a medical centre in short walking distance. Perhaps custom built apartments fully accessible with lifts, and some sort of fee payable for home help as needed. They should be owned as this will give people a sense of pride and independence. Also gardening facilities and a social club, night classes etc should be provided.

Strict regulation in place to prevent price gouging etc. I'd say people would jump at the chance if it was done right. I know I would - sounds a lot more fun than my current life !!!!

Some imaginative scheme could fund this, create jobs, and free up family sized homes. All makes sense.

jon1981

gaius c wrote: »

I pay more tax on my car than these people do on their houses and the car bloody depreciates.

You pay a tax on the services you use (i.e roads) due to owning the car, the value of the car makes no odds. No different to paying for bins, water, electricity, gas...no?

[assuming you mean motor tax and not VRT!]

daheff

If I told you that when you take your money home from work each week/month anything that's left in your bank account at the end of the month will be taxed...would you be happy with this? Would you accept it? The hell you would.


Well look at it this way...you use your leftover money each month to buy a home and then the government tax your leftover money again (money they've already taxed you on).


I've no problems with taxes being levied on income, capital gains etc - because this is new previously untaxed money for you. But to keep taxing you on your income wouldn't be accepted.



Also on the flip side to this, the basis for this tax is not fair. As a society we should be providing equal services to all and not just because of where you live (more taxes in an area where houses are worth more) and less to an area where the asset value is low (or tax these people higher).

daheff

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Because the LPT leads to more stable house prices in the long term rather than a boom bust cycle.

Really? How...its only been in place for a couple of years and its had 0 effect on the house prices.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Of course getting rid of all taxes and simply applying a flat rate of income tax is fairer again. There are public policy reasons why we don't do this.

A progressive income tax is better than a flat rate -not a specific hypothecated tax which this is.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Sorry if this is misquoted to you. the NHS predates the council tax. It's not an unfair comparison really. It works in England and Wales where it's based of property value and, of course, rightly allowances are made for the unemployed, pensioners and people living on their own.

I stand corrected on the UK council tax...never lived there nor paid it.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

This is countered by any number of factors including, market demand and building regulations.

these same factors that have led to boom/bust cycles? building regs are great where implemented properly...I don't think we do it well here. Market demand is boom bust also

enda1

Houses are unproductive assets and need to be taxed in order to have a functioning and liquid economy. Irish (and English people where there is a similar problem) seem to treat houses as an investment asset. It's a ridiculous concept and starves actual business and start-ups from much needed investment.

If property is taxed it will deflate the value and encourage proportionate use of property. The last 40 years have seen an incredible shift of wealth from the young to the old. Property in particular has been one of the major vehicles transporting this lost future of the young to the comfortable old. They never saved for their future either, constantly voting in budget overspending short-sighted politicians who sold the youth's future to them. So they've pensions paid for by today's workers who must also contribute to the public pension fund for their own future and are told to also contribute to private pension funds as there is not likely to be enough in the pension fund after today's grey vote further plunder it. All while sitting in a 5 bedroom draughty Rathgar redbrick and wondering how they maintain the subs in the golf club near their holiday home as well as in Elm Park.

<mod snip> that. Tax wealth and encourage consumption and the generation, not maintenance of wealth.

Marcusm

Tabnabs wrote: »

Like stamp duty when first introduced, it is a short term vision to increase the state coffers. But when properties increase in value (on paper) then the tax increases at a similar rate. But when is the last time the average PAYE home-owner got a pay rise?



If that comes to pass, you'll see a whole new Irish Water scale of protesting. Many of these properties are owned by retired people who have limited means to afford any increase and who are the most vocal and largest voting block in the country.

The tax bands don't make sense in the context of a boom and bust Irish property cycle, which we seem to love rapidly inflated property prices.

She used to be a teacher; I hope she didn't teach maths or any STEM subject. Moving from 675 to 1,035 is little more than a 50% increase not a doubling. What could we expect from someone who tried to drive her car down steps.

Marcusm

Larbre34 wrote: »

Tell you what, I'll let you pop around and mention to her that purely because she is being treated so unfairly by the Government, she should give up her home of 48 years, where she lived her life with her now departed husband and raised her kids and that has the garden that keeps her so active and gives her so much pleasure.

Less cretinous responses please.

She is not being treated unfair,y, she has the opportunity to defer until sale. In the circumstances, she should avail of it. It's a form of asset or wealth tax not a form of income tax. I don't personally think it's the best form of taxation but I'm not going to cry over it - and to be clear I'm paying it on a house occupied (at my expense) by my brother in receipt of disability allowance. The alternative would be not to have housed him but let the state do so. I get a double whammy but I'm still not crying about it.

dubrov

daheff wrote:

Also on the flip side to this, the basis for this tax is not fair. As a society we should be providing equal services to all and not just because of where you live (more taxes in an area where houses are worth more) and less to an area where the asset value is low (or tax these people higher).

daheff wrote:

If I told you that when you take your money home from work each week/month anything that's left in your bank account at the end of the month will be taxed...would you be happy with this? Would you accept it? The hell you would.

Eh, they already do tax this. It is called DIRT and is probably higher here than anywhere else in the world

Barely Hedged

Larbre34 wrote: »

Tell that to the people paying 8 or 9 times what their relatives pay in rural towns.

Tell that to property market participants that assume more value with city rather than rural dwellings.

Larbre34 wrote: »

It should adapt of course, a lot of progress has been made. This doesn't count as progress, it counts as duress.

Taxing an asset that has increased in price by many 100%'s over 48 years. Would the same not apply to somebody whose salary increased by many 100%'s?

Larbre34 wrote: »

I said it earlier, its a societal question as much as a economic one. I wouldn't called people in real distress emotive padding. I really hope our public representatives don't share your outlook either.

"People" in your case is your mother. Lets not repeal national legislation or entertain the notion of it based on your one case study. If its a societal question, the group in question will have to be much bigger than 1

MouseTail

professore wrote: »

I just took a day off work yesterday. Drove from Cork to Laois, picked up my mum, drove another hour and a half to Tullamore for an eye exam - nowhere nearer provided by the HSE, drove another hour back to Laois, stayed an hour, then drove another 2 hours back to Cork. All in all a days work lost, six hours driving because my mum wants to stay in her current house. No buses or public transport anywhere in sight. Is this sustainable?

Has your mother a medical card, any opticians would have provided a free eye test?