Using Property Taxes to Encourage Redistribution of Family Homes

Cyrus

Assetbacked wrote: »

Your statement that "no government ever" is in respect of socialism but the reality is that it is not socialism which will influence the change in measures - this is more of a correction of capitalism, which would allow for more people get richer together instead of only a very small number of people getting richer.

that is socialism

Fol20

Assetbacked wrote: »

This statement is a very dangerous definitive position to take.

We live in a democracy and people will vote for the policies which resonate with them. The vast majority of renters now are paying extortionate amounts on their rent. How big is this group of people? Well, we have something like 70% in ownership so presumably they form part of the 30%. However, these figures are rapidly moving closer together and there is zero chance of this slowing down as rents are predicted to keep climbing for the foreseeable future. The renters will become a larger and larger percentage of voters over time and therefore will have more weight in their vote. This is a simple fact. Your statement that "no government ever" is in respect of socialism but the reality is that it is not socialism which will influence the change in measures - this is more of a correction of capitalism, which would allow for more people get richer together instead of only a very small number of people getting richer.

I don’t think you know the difference between capitalism vs socialism. Everything you are spewing is 100 socialist. You would never have togetherism in a capitalist environment. If we were pure capitalist. Everything would be at market rate. It wouldn’t be about fairness it’s about an individual maximizing his roi.

Yes more people will become renters. What type of demographic votes the most. I don’t know the facts however I have a suspicion that generally renters are younger and are less likely to vote compared to older generations.

As I said already. Unless renting becomes a public body, if you decentivise roi on rentals. Even though you might have good intentions, supply will further decrease and if supply goes down. Costs will go up.

Assetbacked

Fol20 wrote: »

I don’t think you know the difference between capitalism vs socialism. Everything you are spewing is 100 socialist. You would never have togetherism in a capitalist environment. If we were pure capitalist. Everything would be at market rate. It wouldn’t be about fairness it’s about an individual maximizing his roi.

Yes more people will become renters. What type of demographic votes the most. I don’t know the facts however I have a suspicion that generally renters are younger and are less likely to vote compared to older generations.

As I said already. Unless renting becomes a public body, if you decentivise roi on rentals. Even though you might have good intentions, supply will further decrease and if supply goes down. Costs will go up.

Cyrus wrote: »

that is socialism

Capitalism is about the ability for people to work harder to enrich themselves. The wealth being generated in the economy now is not enriching everyone, it is being funnelled into property (source: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/we-are-wealthier-than-during-the-boom-says-central-bank-1.3691310?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Ffinancial-services%2Fwe-are-wealthier-than-during-the-boom-says-central-bank-1.3691310). By ensuring a more equal distribution of this wealth, we are in a better functioning capitalist system.

It would be better to have 100 millionaires rather than 1 billionaire is the differentiation to socialism.

Assetbacked

Fol20 wrote: »

I don’t think you know the difference between capitalism vs socialism. Everything you are spewing is 100 socialist. You would never have togetherism in a capitalist environment. If we were pure capitalist. Everything would be at market rate. It wouldn’t be about fairness it’s about an individual maximizing his roi.

Yes more people will become renters. What type of demographic votes the most. I don’t know the facts however I have a suspicion that generally renters are younger and are less likely to vote compared to older generations.

As I said already. Unless renting becomes a public body, if you decentivise roi on rentals. Even though you might have good intentions, supply will further decrease and if supply goes down. Costs will go up.

On this point, in 10 years the "younger people" who are currently in the rental system will be ten years older and there will be a new generation in the broken rental system. This is what is going to happen as nothing is making a difference to the situation so it is just getting worse. The "younger" voters of today will start to become the older voters but will still have the same problems as they do today.

Assetbacked

Deleted User wrote: »

You may well have some valid points. Your sneering tone in the above two posts is doing you no favours. I get that you're not here to make friends, but if you want people to engage with you meaningfully you could maybe tone it down a smidgeon.

You are correct to point out the hypocrisy of the likes of RBB and the NIMBY culture. Same goes for Sinn F who essentially control Dublin City Council and refuse to lift the height restrictions across the city, while bleating about those in power's refusal to address the situation.



An increase in property tax is not fair and equitable. Yes, those who have more should pay more (and should be willing to pay more), but owning your own home is the most illiquid and under-realised form of wealth in the country.

Is it fair that a two bed around, say, East Wall is worth twice as much as a 4-bed in, for example, Balbriggan? Why, then, should a retired set of grandparents be forced to pay double the LPT of a young couple in the 'burbs? Or is it fairer to view the relative incomes of the occupants of both properties and tax that accordingly? You know, like already do.......

Noted, apologies. I felt like I was banging my head against a brick wall.

Cyrus

Assetbacked wrote: »

Capitalism is about the ability for people to work harder to enrich themselves. The wealth being generated in the economy now is not enriching everyone, it is being funnelled into property (source: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/we-are-wealthier-than-during-the-boom-says-central-bank-1.3691310?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Ffinancial-services%2Fwe-are-wealthier-than-during-the-boom-says-central-bank-1.3691310). By ensuring a more equal distribution of this wealth, we are in a better functioning capitalist system.

It would be better to have 100 millionaires rather than 1 billionaire is the differentiation to socialism.

you mean a thousand,

and you arent convincing me.

Cyrus

Assetbacked wrote: »

On this point, in 10 years the "younger people" who are currently in the rental system will be ten years older and there will be a new generation in the broken rental system. This is what is going to happen as nothing is making a difference to the situation so it is just getting worse. The "younger" voters of today will start to become the older voters but will still have the same problems as they do today.

people will buy houses eventually, may not be where they want them to be but they will, ireland isnt set up for people to rent long term.

The Specialist

Assetbacked wrote: »

This statement is a very dangerous definitive position to take.

We live in a democracy and people will vote for the policies which resonate with them. The vast majority of renters now are paying extortionate amounts on their rent. How big is this group of people? Well, we have something like 70% in ownership so presumably they form part of the 30%. However, these figures are rapidly moving closer together and there is zero chance of this slowing down as rents are predicted to keep climbing for the foreseeable future. The renters will become a larger and larger percentage of voters over time and therefore will have more weight in their vote. This is a simple fact. Your statement that "no government ever" is in respect of socialism but the reality is that it is not socialism which will influence the change in measures - this is more of a correction of capitalism, which would allow for more people get richer together instead of only a very small number of people getting richer.

Nobody is ever going to touch this idea with a barge pole, doesn't matter what your voting base is or what you envision it to be years from now. This idea is not palatable or logical to anybody but the free things for everyone brigade. Property that people worked hard to purchase and maintain is theirs and theirs alone - nobody is going to endorse ramping up costs/taxes on them to somehow drive them out of the home they worked to get.

Assetbacked

Assetbacked wrote: »

It's about taxing wealth - the wealth is in property so tax it. That's what a progressive tax system is and that is what we have in place in Ireland.

"Rich" is not the correct term.

It has already been taxed. Multiple times. Why do you want to punish those who've already contributed? Because now it's worth more? Then why stop there, and start taxing every time somebody's asset appreciates such as interest on your bank account?

ELM327

Deleted User wrote: »

It has already been taxed. Multiple times. Why do you want to punish those who've already contributed? Because now it's worth more? Then why stop there, and start taxing every time somebody's asset appreciates such as interest on your bank account?

cough... DIRT.... cough


But yes I agree with you.




This nonsense of taxing already multiply taxed income to pay for the non-working classes is just that, nonsense. Socialism by the back door.

Assetbacked

Cyrus wrote: »

people will buy houses eventually, may not be where they want them to be but they will, ireland isnt set up for people to rent long term.

It needs to be set for people to rent long term because in today's and future Ireland we will have more and more people who are renting long term due to the lack of money available to save to buy a house.

I'm not even sure people will buy houses eventually given the dire lack of housing being built. In twenty years the government at the time will need to start worrying about the significant cost to the State in welfare for a huge chunk of the population approaching retirement age with no means to support themselves to death either in cash and/or with a home. We are at the tail end of the post-Celtic Tiger recession but only at the beginning of the long-term impacts of the recession.

Assetbacked

ELM327 wrote: »

cough... DIRT.... cough


But yes I agree with you.




This nonsense of taxing already multiply taxed income to pay for the non-working classes is just that, nonsense. Socialism by the back door.

Retired people are non-working classes - taxing workers is paying for services which benefit these non-working people. I agree that non-working classes should, where possible, contribute more.

witchgirl26

Assetbacked wrote: »

Retired people are non-working classes - taxing workers is paying for services which benefit these non-working people. I agree that non-working classes should, where possible, contribute more.

You do know that the state pension is taxable? As are private pensions unless they are very low indeed or the state pension is your only source of income.

Assetbacked

witchgirl26 wrote: »

You do know that the state pension is taxable? As are private pensions unless they are very low indeed or the state pension is your only source of income.

By the same brush stroke you could say the dole is taxed by increasing taxes on alcohol and cigarettes.

witchgirl26

Assetbacked wrote: »

By the same brush stroke you could say the dole is taxed by increasing taxes on alcohol and cigarettes.

Eh no. The pension is subject to income tax.

Assetbacked

witchgirl26 wrote: »

Eh no. The pension is subject to income tax.

There are a lot of exemptions to this to the point where it is more accurate to say that the general rule is that pensions are not actually subject to tax.

beauf

Amirani wrote: »

At modest levels it's fine. But it's easy to see the problems at higher levels; Paris Hilton being a commonly cited example. In the US the tax-free threshold from Federal Estate tax is like $11m or so. At those levels, generations and generations are born in to wealth, with no requirement to work.....

Except Hilton might not be the best example as she has leveraged her image quite cleverly to build a brand and business on it.

Many others have tried to do this and failed.

Hilton has commanded up to US$750,000 and US$1 million for appearances in parties and promotional events, though she earns around US$250,000–US$300,000 on a regular basis.[347] Her retail businesses, which include 50 stores and 19 product lines, have generated sales of over US$2.5 billion, of which she earns over US$10 million a year.[347] Since debuting as a DJ in 2012, she has been paid as much as US$1 million for a single set,[348] and in 2014, she earned US$2.7 million for four nights work—US$347,000 an hour—as part of her two-month residence in Ibiza.[349] Her net worth is estimated to be US$300 million as of 2018.[350]

witchgirl26

Assetbacked wrote: »

There are a lot of exemptions to this to the point where it is more accurate to say that the general rule is that pensions are not actually subject to tax.

Actually no there aren't. All income arising from pensions (apart from social welfare pensions but not the state pension) is taxable under PAYE. Now some might not be taxed as they fall below the income tax limits. Like anyone else on PAYE, they're entitled to allowances etc. But realistically they can all be subject to tax.

Fol20

Assetbacked wrote: »

It needs to be set for people to rent long term because in today's and future Ireland we will have more and more people who are renting long term due to the lack of money available to save to buy a house.

I'm not even sure people will buy houses eventually given the dire lack of housing being built. In twenty years the government at the time will need to start worrying about the significant cost to the State in welfare for a huge chunk of the population approaching retirement age with no means to support themselves to death either in cash and/or with a home. We are at the tail end of the post-Celtic Tiger recession but only at the beginning of the long-term impacts of the recession.

The sad thing is that i suspect the pension will be means tested by the time i hit retirement even though i will have put in a lot of years service paying into it. Tbh, the government should enforce a pension contribution of say 5pc similar to australia's superannuation so that people pay into their OWN pension. This way the people that worked hard all their life will get something back while other that didnt will receive nothing. I hope they will reduce the pension overall so that everyone including the people who have worked hard for their wealth along with everyone will get a fair share, but im sure this doesnt bode well with socialism fundamentals

ELM327

Assetbacked wrote: »

Retired people are non-working classes - taxing workers is paying for services which benefit these non-working people. I agree that non-working classes should, where possible, contribute more.

Retired people are not "the non-working", they have worked and built their wealth,
"non-working" people refers to those unwilling to seek gainful employment

Fol20

Assetbacked wrote: »

By the same brush stroke you could say the dole is taxed by increasing taxes on alcohol and cigarettes.

Not quite, pension is taxable directly and is not avoidable.

Indirect taxation on alcohol etc is based on consumption and can be avoided, or alternatives could be sought to alleviate the amount of taxation. Cigarettes in particular cost the nation millions. I would be all for having no tax on cigs if the people had to pay for all the related medical issues themself. The amount it costs the state to fund the health care bills for people far outweighs what they receive in tax from it.

elperello

Assetbacked wrote: »

There are a lot of exemptions to this to the point where it is more accurate to say that the general rule is that pensions are not actually subject to tax.

Pensions are definitely subject to tax under PAYE same as other income.

Also some pensioners also do paid work which is subject to to tax.

Another point worth making is that a lot of retired people do unpaid voluntary work which is of benefit to society.

beauf

Assetbacked wrote: »

...to the point where it is more accurate ....

You probably should avoid that word...

You need to broaden your horizons both in looking at the issues. But also in looking at solutions.

Increasingly people have to look at the options for living not in Dublin and possibly not in Ireland. Also look whats happening elsewhere.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/london-housing-crisis-cbi-survey-workers-quit-capital-house-prices-rent-a8321551.html

beauf

Fol20 wrote: »

The sad thing is that i suspect the pension will be means tested by the time i hit retirement even though i will have put in a lot of years service paying into it. Tbh...

Wait till you get blocked from a medical card because you have a pension. Thats a real kicker.

brightspark

Fol20 wrote: »

Tbh, the government should enforce a pension contribution of say 5pc

Many of us pay PRSI which for many used to effectively included a contribution for the pension (as some workers paid a smaller rate which did not confer an entitlement to a pension)

PRSI was Pay Related Social Insurance, a lot of benefits were originally based on a percentage of your income in previous years. Those days are long gone.
While many protested against water charges of a few hundred euro, with a stroke of a pen my pension age was raised from 65 to 68, effectively taking 3 years of payments (worth over €70,000 at today's rates for me and my spouse!)

Don't forget that rate is based on working over 48 weeks per year and paying PRSI/USC taxes etc., it isn't "money for nothing".

Cyrus

Assetbacked wrote: »

By the same brush stroke you could say the dole is taxed by increasing taxes on alcohol and cigarettes.

er what now?

brightspark

Given that we now have low rates of unemployment again, we should consider a form of "Workfare" instead for those on long term unemployment.

This "Workfare" could be any form of community work etc., the important thing is that the person does something to get the payment.
Naturally it should be paid at a fair rate, e.g. €10 per hour, so if your own current social welfare payment is ~€210 you would have to work just 21 hours, however if you have a dependent and have a payment of ~€320 then you need to work 32 hours. If your have lots of kids etc. then you will have an even longer working week!

But you would be no worse off than someone on the minimum wage and have the dignity of having earned the money contributing to society.

Fol20

brightspark wrote: »

Given that we now have low rates of unemployment again, we should consider a form of "Workfare" instead for those on long term unemployment.

This "Workfare" could be any form of community work etc., the important thing is that the person does something to get the payment.
Naturally it should be paid at a fair rate, e.g. €10 per hour, so if your own current social welfare payment is ~€210 you would have to work just 21 hours, however if you have a dependent and have a payment of ~€320 then you need to work 32 hours. If your have lots of kids etc. then you will have an even longer working week!

But you would be no worse off than someone on the minimum wage and have the dignity of having earned the money contributing to society.

I would love a scheme like this. Even if it’s just 21 hours a week that give you another 20 hours a week to look for a job. Yet at the same time, your being productive, earning your keep and giving back to your local community.

Fol20

brightspark wrote: »

Many of us pay PRSI which for many used to effectively included a contribution for the pension (as some workers paid a smaller rate which did not confer an entitlement to a pension)

PRSI was Pay Related Social Insurance, a lot of benefits were originally based on a percentage of your income in previous years. Those days are long gone.
While many protested against water charges of a few hundred euro, with a stroke of a pen my pension age was raised from 65 to 68, effectively taking 3 years of payments (worth over €70,000 at today's rates for me and my spouse!)

Don't forget that rate is based on working over 48 weeks per year and paying PRSI/USC taxes etc., it isn't "money for nothing".

I can see what your saying however the current pension is worth in excess of 250k+ and I highly doubt many of the people receiving it contributed that much. It should be based on your own contribution ,the more you work. The more you can maintain your current standard of living. The less you work. They less you shall receive

I fell for you. That’s 3 years of your golden years that you can’t get back.

brightspark

Fol20 wrote: »

I would love a scheme like this. Even if it’s just 21 hours a week that give you another 20 hours a week to look for a job. Yet at the same time, your being productive, earning your keep and giving back to your local community.

I'm certain that there will be someone along shortly to disagree.