Surely you're not arguing for a flat property tax regardless of the value of a property? Seriously?!
Bear in mind that I'm arguing in favour of a site-value tax in place of a property tax such as LPT. But even LPT is based on the value of a dwelling. Do you object to that? Should LPT be applied at a standard rate to every dwelling regardless of the value of the dwelling?
That logic seems totally bizarre to me.
I like the idea of a site value tax because, as pointed out, it doesn't penalise people who improve their property.Well, one of the reasons that urban land is more valuable than rural land is because it benefits from more immediate access to various services (roads, schools, concert halls, sports stadia, etc.). Many of these facilities are partly or wholly funded by the taxpayer so, all things being equal, it doesn't seem unreasonable that the owner of property in an urban area would make a higher contribution to the exchequer to reflect these additional (taxpayer funded) benefits.
The State is paying money into the pensions of the retired which should be saved for the pensions of working people.Purple said ,Please stop posting that nonsense. Their employer paid high social insurance and they paid not so high social insurance until the PRSI ceiling was removed (I think that was in 2002).
It is not it will not affect my generation but it will affect your generation,
Strange how most posters never took in the point Philip Lane was trying to make
I can say there was enough prsi taken from payroll to fund my pension during my working life ,
I suspect I am closer to the topic than you,The State is paying money into the pensions of the retired which should be saved for the pensions of working people.
The PRSI you paid during your working life was used to fund all sorts of things including your pension. Your employer also paid PRSI. None of that went towards your pension. It's called social insurance, not state pension deduction. For most of your working life there was a cap on what you paid. You came nowhere close to funding your pension. When you meetworking people now thank them; it is they that are paying your pension.
Now please try to stay on topic and stop with this PRSI thing i every second thread.
I agree, but we spend the money runding your pension and bailing out the investments of your generation instead.There are lots of hard working people from your generation who are not in a position to do so these are the people that we need to be looking after now while we can
Nonsense.The point that you are missing it was enough to fund my pension ,That IS Where The Cap Came From ,
The only reason the cap was removed was because lots of other people were reclassified and allowed into the fund,
Go check and you will find out the cap was adjusted in line with pension increases most years, just look at all of the people who were added in in the last few months but of coures that went over your head,Nonsense.
I would have no issue with the rate of any site-value tax being set at whatever level a local authority determined was appropriate to meet the cost of providing local services.I like the idea of a site value tax because, as pointed out, it doesn't penalise people who improve their property.
If a local services tax was based on the cost of delivering local services then that tax would be far higher in rural areas. LPT is spent by local authorities but it is not spent where it is collected; for every€1 spent per head in Dublin there is €90 per head spent in Leitrim.
It would result in huge increase in taxes for rural dwellers and a resulting increase in population shift away from rural areas.I would have no issue with the rate of any site-value tax being set at whatever level a local authority determined was appropriate to meet the cost of providing local services.
In fact, I think it would inject some much needed accountability into the system.
That would imply people would move from Dublin to the country to lower their property tax bills, and thereby bid up house prices in the country to Dublin-like levels. This just doesn't happen.The tax in this case is a recurring cost of ownership, thus making the asset less valuable.
It would be more correct to say: " The real cost of a house for most buyers is what they will be able to pay per month on their mortgage, relative to what they are already paying for rent, which, unless the landlord is particularly charitable, will include the property tax." The tax is effectively disassociated from property. It represses your budget but not to such a level as to affect decision making. The decision is to continue renting or buy an asset that should increase in value. If you rent the landlord passes on the property tax to you one way or another. So as you most likely pay it, either explicitly or implicitly, it does not impact on your rent or buy decision, so it's irrelevant to the price of houses.The real cost of a house for most buyers is what they will be able to pay per month on their mortgage. If they can pay €800 and that services a €200,000 mortgage then they can spend that (plus a deposit) on a house. If there is a €100 per month property tax then they can only pay €700 a month on a mortgage so they can only borrow €175,000. Apply that to every mortgage in the country and prices drop accordingly.
Agreed. Whatever you call them taxes which broaden the tax base, produce stable returns to the exchequer (aren’t capital transaction based) and don’t repress wealth generating activities (work) are to be welcomed.'Property tax' is just its name. It's a quasi-lump sum tax, calculated on the value of your property, but it could be calculated on anything else, like the length of your nose. Each year the taxman comes and takes this lump-sum from your bank account. Economists, e.g. the CB and the IMF, love lump-sum taxes, because (a) they have no disincentive or substitution effects, e.g. income tax acts as a disincentive to work and substitutes black market labour for taxed labour; or (b) do not affect relative prices in the economy or change decision making. You just have less money to spend. It's just another way for the state to take more money from the taxpayer, and is particularly unfair as it does not take into account the income tax you have already paid; and the variability of values of similar type properties.
It doesn’t imply anything of the sort.That would imply people would move from Dublin to the country to lower their property tax bills, and thereby bid up house prices in the country to Dublin-like levels. This just doesn't happen.
No, it is what they can pay to finance the loan. What they spend their money on before they buy the property is irrelevant.It would be more correct to say: " The real cost of a house for most buyers is what they will be able to pay per month on their mortgage, relative to what they are already paying for rent, which, unless the landlord is particularly charitable, will include the property tax." The tax is effectively disassociated from property. It represses your budget but not to such a level as to affect decision making. The decision is to continue renting or buy an asset that should increase in value. If you rent the landlord passes on the property tax to you one way or another. So as you most likely pay it, either explicitly or implicitly, it does not impact on your rent or buy decision, so it's irrelevant to the price of houses.
Not necessarily.It would result in huge increase in taxes for rural dwellers and a resulting increase in population shift away from rural areas.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?