Property tax changes will see 36% face higher tax

Geuze

Immortal Starlight wrote: »

I agree with Mary Lou 100% on this. It most definitely should be abolished.

Property taxes are the most sensible of all taxes.

That is why many countries in the world have property taxes.

Wibbs

Geuze wrote: »

Property taxes are the most sensible of all taxes.

That is why many countries in the world have property taxes.

Just saying it doesn't make it true and for the reasons already given it is very much debatable. More than debatable in Ireland's proerty market and that's before the wastage in spending our existing tax base.

Geuze

Wibbs wrote: »

Just saying it doesn't make it true and for the reasons already given it is very much debatable. More than debatable in Ireland's proerty market and that's before the wastage in spending our existing tax base.

There is widespread agreement on this point.

I will find Mirrlees for you.

Jerry Attrick

Immortal Starlight wrote: »

I agree with Mary Lou 100% on this. It most definitely should be abolished.

That's one of the most convincing arguments that I've ever read on Boards.ie.

If Mary Lou says it, then it must be right!

In fact, maybe I'll just stop thinking for myself from now on and let Mary Lou do my thinking for me.

Spanish Eyes

Geuze wrote: »

Property taxes are the most sensible of all taxes.

That is why many countries in the world have property taxes.

As others have said, that is fine if you get all the services included. We don't, we pay a PT and still have to pay for municipal services like waste collection etc. No one has a wheeze where the PT is going within the Councils. Seems to me that services have reduced since its introduction, but I'm a cynic, forgive me.

In countries like France and UK, everyone pays their community charge/council tax. Everyone, renters and owners alike, sounds ok to me, after all everyone uses the services in those countries and others who have similar systems. Our PT is akin to a wealth tax really, only those who own or will own residential property must pay it, but everyone uses the services, bad as they are here in general.

I note that the charity donation to smaller yielding councils is going. That is a good move. If you want to live in a city you pay more for the ease of access to facilities, if you choose to live rurally, you don't get the same services so must manage on what you've got. Although I note that shortfalls in low yielding councils will be made up by Central Government. The lobbying to get extra funding will be interesting.

jimmycrackcorm

conorhal wrote: »

Food.
Water.
Shelter.

The three basics a person needs to live, taxing such is criminal.

It benefits me naught that my home has shot up in value, this is merely a product of the government's broken housing policy and them telling me that I have to pay more because my home is worth more adds insult to injury.

Taxes are required for what the state provides and must be raised by various means. You can regard taxes as criminal for many things, VRT for example.
Why not include electricity? But why should these be criminal when you get the benefit from taxes?

Consumption taxes are very fair, the more you use, the more you pay.
The shelter that you think should be untaxed, gets the benefit of the road infrastructure that allows you to travel to and from it. And, before someone chimes in about "road" taxes paying for that, motor taxes go to the local authority which provides and maintains lots of facilities, and people living in properties who don't drive also get those benefits.

If the argument is that people shouldn't pay taxes for the basics to live then it follows that they should have to make up the shortfall to pay extra for the services they need apart from those e.g. a Garda tax in case you have a burglary.

magicbastarder

NIMAN wrote: »

From what I can see, those of us who have a house worth less than 900k are paying the same?

superficially, yes.
but that house wasn't worth 900k five years ago. if the house had increased in value, in line with inflation, fine, but if your house has increased in value through bad governance, people will complain.

blanch152

Wibbs wrote: »

Just saying it doesn't make it true and for the reasons already given it is very much debatable. More than debatable in Ireland's proerty market and that's before the wastage in spending our existing tax base.

Property doesn't disappear unless it is demolished.

Income can be shifted to other countries, non-tangible wealth can be shifted to other countries, corporations can shift to other countries, but houses and property can't. As a result, property taxes can offer the most sustainable tax base. Ours doesn't quite do that, as it is based on value, but there are very good reasons why property taxes are widespread.

Geuze

The IFS have the Mirrlees review:

https://ifs.org.uk/publications/mirrleesreview#:~:text=The%20Mirrlees%20Review%20brought%20together,and%20recommend%20how%20it%20might

Chapter 8 is about the taxation of wealth.

https://ifs.org.uk/uploads/mirrleesreview/dimensions/ch8.pdf

See page 803.

blanch152

Jerry Attrick wrote: »

That's one of the most convincing arguments that I've ever read on Boards.ie.

If Mary Lou says it, then it must be right!

In fact, maybe I'll just stop thinking for myself from now on and let Mary Lou do my thinking for me.

You have just become a Shinnerbot on Twitter, they all let Mary-Lou do their thinking for them.

Geuze

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

As others have said, that is fine if you get all the services included. We don't, we pay a PT and still have to pay for municipal services like waste collection etc. No one has a wheeze where the PT is going within the Councils. Seems to me that services have reduced since its introduction, but I'm a cynic, forgive me.

All local authorities publish accounts.

We do know where the LPT goes.


Expenditure

Housing and Building = 1.37bn (this is not capital expenditure)
Roads = 1 bn
Water = 357m
Development Management = 390m
Environmental services = 675m
Recreation and Amenity = 433m
Plus misc.....



Income

Central Govt grants = 1.580 bn
Selling goods and services = 1.355 bn
LPT = 396m
Rates = 1.5 bn

Mimon

osarusan wrote: »

That applies to any other tax as well though doesn't it?
Any shopping you do, bills you pay, all come with tax and are paid for by income you've already been taxed on.
Or is property tax different somehow?

I agree with the general argument here that it's not fair that people are considered to have 'wealth' purely because they bought (with mortgage) a property that has increased in value since they bought it.

And even more unfair that the increase is magnified by total incompetence in the housing policy of successive governments.

Just because VAT is doesn't mean property tax has to be. It would be unwieldy to do it with Vat. Would be easy to do it with property tax as it is already linked to the owners PPS etc.

magicbastarder

to take a reductio ad absurdum approach, if property values continued to climb, say to three times their current values, according to the model of judging wealth based on property values, most people in ireland would be three times richer (assuming most people's wealth is tied up in property).
but we'd be an economic basket case, or dam collapse waiting to happen.

if you want to tax people on wealth, tax it based on actual wealth (or property wealth relative to the rest of society, which seems to be an equitable way to do it) and not an illusory wealth tagged to an artificial price.

magicbastarder

or else baseline it against what the government claim is an affordable house; if the government can claim an affordable house costs €450k and that everyone needs somewhere to live, someone in a house worth €400k has no 'net' wealth but someone in a house worth €950k has half a million in 'net' wealth.

Spanish Eyes

Geuze wrote: »

All local authorities publish accounts.

We do know where the LPT goes.


Expenditure

Housing and Building = 1.37bn (this is not capital expenditure)
Roads = 1 bn
Water = 357m
Development Management = 390m
Environmental services = 675m
Recreation and Amenity = 433m
Plus misc.....



Income

Central Govt grants = 1.580 bn
Selling goods and services = 1.355 bn
LPT = 396m
Rates = 1.5 bn

Thanks.

Can't see much happening in the Environmental Services though. IW (or ourselves alone) sort out leaks and all that. No waste collections, lots spent on clean ups as a result, seems false economy to me. Plenty of loot for cycle lanes at the moment, they are the enhancements du jour and anything anywhere in the cities can be disrupted to facilitate them. I am in favour of reducing vehicular traffic in urban areas/city centres, but the alternatives to car driving are poor. Not everyone is comfortable cycling, even on dedicated lanes.

Next up is VFM and outsourcing. I'm talking Council expenditure in general not just PT.

Jerry Attrick

Geuze wrote: »

Property taxes are the most sensible of all taxes.

That is why many countries in the world have property taxes.

But we don't have a proper property tax!

For instance, my mate Reggie "filthy rich" Richardson rents his six bedroom mansion in Foxrock so doesn't have to pay LPT on it and he owns an 8 berth ocean-going yacht that he keeps in Dun Laoghaire but he doesn't have to pay LPT on it either.

And lucky Reggie also owns a mobile home in Brittas Bay but, guess what - he's not liable to pay LPT on it either because, in a fit of stupidity, Michael Noonan exempted mobile homes from the tax.

Meanwhile, the luckless Mrs. Attrick and I have to pay LPT on our decaying tin shack in deepest Leitrim.

Jerry Attrick

blanch152 wrote: »

You have just become a Shinnerbot on Twitter, they all let Mary-Lou do their thinking for them.

The ironic thing is that Mary Lou herself lets Pearse "magic money tree" Doherty do all of her economic thinking for her! (Talk about the blind leading the blind!)

Donald Trump

Neither the rate nor the value really matters individually. All that matters is the combination.

If the value of all the houses they have to tax is 100 and they need 1 then the tax rate will be 1%. If the value of the house shoots up to 2, they will set the tax rate at 0.5%.

All that matters really is the relative value of your house to all the other houses. That will determine the proportion of the tax required that you will pay.


LAs currently have some discretion to haircut the assessed tax across the board as far as I understand

Geuze

Jerry Attrick wrote: »

But we don't have a proper property tax!

For instance, my mate Reggie "filthy rich" Richardson rents his six bedroom mansion in Foxrock so doesn't have to pay LPT on it and he owns an 8 berth ocean-going yacht that he keeps in Dun Laoghaire but he doesn't have to pay LPT on it either.

Why isn't LPT payable on the Foxrock house?

Geuze

Donald Trump wrote: »

LAs currently have some discretion to haircut the assessed tax across the board as far as I understand

LA can vote on + / - 15%.

osarusan

Jerry Attrick wrote: »

For instance, my mate Reggie "filthy rich" Richardson rents his six bedroom mansion in Foxrock so doesn't have to pay LPT on it and he owns an 8 berth ocean-going yacht that he keeps in Dun Laoghaire but he doesn't have to pay LPT on it either.

Reggie Richardson renting a six bedroom mansion in Foxrock to avoid LPT is a real shrewd move alright. Let the owner pay the LPT instead. All Reggie has to do is pay (conservatively) €60000 a year in rent to avoid a yearly payment of (say) €12000.


Crafty bastard.

Earn money - Pay income tax on that money
Use that money to buy house - Pay stamp duty on the property
Raise your kids and retire - Property tax introduced
Can't afford the tax? - Sell up and buy a cheaper property?

I have serious issues with paying tax three times on what is effectively the same income. I have grave concerns for elderly people buying a home in a disadvantaged area, living there while the area was rundown and neglected, then being forced to sell up when taxed out of it because the neighbourhood has been gentrified and the prices went mad. Imagine the stress of having to move in your 70s because you can't afford the tax on the property you bought years ago, paid tax on twice already and are now being taxed again.

Imagine telling a pensioner they've to fork over 5% out of their pension every year because FF and FG made a balls of the housing situation.

Fuascailteoir

Geuze wrote: »

LA can vote on + / - 15%.

Is that 15% on the states figure or could they adjust 15% upwards each year

lotsobear

Sligo county council elected representatives voted to increase the LPT by 15% within 4 weeks of being reelected 2 years ago. Now facing another increase, unsustainable expecting the same people to keep paying for the ever growing group who decide to live off the system.

Jerry Attrick

osarusan wrote: »

Reggie Richardson renting a six bedroom mansion in Foxrock to avoid LPT is a real shrewd move alright. Let the owner pay the LPT instead. All Reggie has to do is pay (conservatively) €60000 a year in rent to avoid a yearly payment of (say) €12000.


Crafty bastard.

Reggie's no fool - his employer pays the rent.

Geuze wrote: »

Why isn't LPT payable on the Foxrock house?

It is; by the owner.

For Forks Sake

Immortal Starlight wrote: »

I agree with Mary Lou 100% on this. It most definitely should be abolished.

I'd say Mary Lou has a vested interest, seeing as her gaff would fall into one of the highest LPT bands

Geuze

Fuascailteoir wrote: »

Is that 15% on the states figure or could they adjust 15% upwards each year

The central rate is 0.18% of the house value.

Each year, the Cllr vote, with three options:

(1) leave the LPT alone, at 0.18%
(2) increase, and by how much, the max is 15%
(3) reduce, and by how much, the max is 15%

meeeeh

There is nothing wrong with property tax and it's relatively cheap in Ireland. Its broad safe tax base and it taxes the asset we have.

Nobody seems to object to paying road (car) tax yet your biggest asset should not be taxed because SF and other left wing geniuses (the irony) have some magic money three to pay for public and local services.

McMurphy

meeeeh wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with property tax and it's relatively cheap in Ireland. Its broad safe tax base and it taxes the asset we have.

Nobody seems to object to paying road (car) tax yet your biggest asset should not be taxed because SF and other left wing geniuses (the irony) have some magic money three to pay for public and local services.

Since when

Head on over to the motors forum and see how that statement holds up.

Immortal Starlight

Jerry Attrick wrote: »

That's one of the most convincing arguments that I've ever read on Boards.ie.

If Mary Lou says it, then it must be right!

In fact, maybe I'll just stop thinking for myself from now on and let Mary Lou do my thinking for me.

Or maybe you could read what I actually posted instead of twisting it.