That's an increase in wealth. Put it this way, if you didn't own that home would it cost you more to have the use of it, whether through a mortgage or by renting it? That's you having wealth and so not having to pay for the use of someone else's wealth. The people who do have to pay for the access to someone else's wealth (in the form of a house) do so with income that has been taxed at a marginal rate of over 50%.Taxing the notional value gain on shelter/home is a problem in my eyes. A family home which doesn't change hands and which I live in with my family has not increased my wealth except on paper.
I don't understand that point in relation to taxation.There are different types of wealth, with different buyers/investors....and pretending they are all equal in the eyes of the general public/voters is true wizardofozcononmics
It's only an actual wealth increase if I crystalize the gain. Otherwise it remains a home/shelter.That's an increase in wealth. Put it this way, if you didn't own that home would it cost you more to have the use of it, whether through a mortgage or by renting it? That's you having wealth and so not having to pay for the use of someone else's wealth. The people who do have to pay for the access to someone else's wealth (in the form of a house) do so with income that has been taxed at a marginal rate of over 50%.
I don't understand that point in relation to taxation.
No, it's still wealth. It's not liquid until you sell it but it gives you a real tangible benefit each day. Even if it doesn't it's still wealth. It just happens to also have a utility value.It's only an actual wealth increase if I crystalize the gain. Otherwise it remains a home/shelter.
You did, but the next guy will have to pay far more than you did for the same property. None of that is relevant though as property tax isn't there to punish people. It's there to broaden the tax base, lower property prices and shift taxes away from wealth creation and onto wealth retention because all that is good for the economy.This is going around in circles- I also paid for that house, through a mortgage(access to someone elses wealth) and through after tax income at higher rates.
A rich person is someone who earns more than I do.Interesting how most tax conversations eventually seem to centre around who we deem 'rich'.
That's the problem, we see other people's income and say that they are rich. They see their income and expenditure and think they are doing okay but don't consider themselves rich.A rich person is someone who earns more than I do.
For me, the idea I was sold was that I would pass through each life stage from one to the other....with the ups and downs of each.Should we be giving welfare to someone with a low income who owns a house worth €3 million while we tax the hell out of a high income family with a big mortgage and a gaggle of kids?
Yes, but is it societally desirable or fair at this time, particularly considering the declining rates of home ownership.For me, the idea I was sold was that I would pass through each life stage from one to the other....with the ups and downs of each.
Single; I paid more tax than families, with a family; later our ages and incomes had risen and we pay substantial taxes due to being in the higher bracket. 10's of thousands in childcare, mortgages- this is simply life!
When you say its value on paper do you mean its real actual realisable value?Hopefully when I get to 65, having been a higher tax payer most of my life and paid for service after service, I won't be forced out of a home due to it's value on paper, which I may not have the funds to pay taxes on at that stage.
'At this time' - exactly, and a cyclical market cannot be the basis for fair policy.Yes, but is it societally desirable or fair at this time, particularly considering the declining rates of home ownership.
A house bought in Dublin in the 1990s was in a decaying city with few jobs, two universities and a dismal society. The same house today is in a city with vast employment opportunity, four universities and a thriving society.It's only an actual wealth increase if I crystalize the gain. Otherwise it remains a home/shelter.
General benefits gained from where you live? Most parts of Ireland have improved since the 90's.A house bought in Dublin in the 1990s was in a decaying city with few jobs, two universities and a dismal society. The same house today is in a city with vast employment opportunity, four universities and a thriving society.
Your house may not have changed but you have benefitted from the improvements in Irish life, and your children have probably benefitted even more. That is why your house has increased in value. So even without selling you have reaped the benefit.
Dublin had at least 3 universities in 1990, TCD, UCD & DCU.A house bought in Dublin in the 1990s was in a decaying city with few jobs, two universities and a dismal society. The same house today is in a city with vast employment opportunity, four universities and a thriving society.
Your house may not have changed but you have benefitted from the improvements in Irish life, and your children have probably benefitted even more. That is why your house has increased in value. So even without selling you have reaped the benefit.
It was and it still is. Buddleia sprouting from buildings in the city centre.Dublin was absolutely not a decaying city in the 90s as someone who was there in the latter part of that decade in college in one of the Uni's.
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?