If, instead of stamp duties, we'd had an annual property tax, like a grown-up country, the fall would have been nothing like 60% (though it would still have been more than 7.4%).
It was the fall in income tax receipts in the year after the 2008 crash.Where does the 7.4% come from.
That's politicallly difficult; you're putting up taxes (doubling them!) at a time when people are already in economic shock. So the politicians will look at alternatives like, e.g., borrowing more, cutting back on spending and services, putting put different taxes. etc. But, yeah, you're basically right; the authorities will generally respond with some combination of more borrowing, less spending and a mix of increases, including some increaase in property tax.If a city needs €1bn from property tax, has 1m residents with an average home value of €100,000 then you set property tax a 1%.
If there is a cash, the average property value drops to €50,000 but you still need €1bn you set the rate to 2%.
You basically start with what you need and figure out how to get it as opposed to setting tax rates and seeing what happens.
If you bought then and there was no QE and bail out then you’d still be in negative equity.For 50 somethings, it depends when houses were purchased. A lot of people bought houses in 2004-2008 that are only now (in Dublin) just about worth more than we paid - and we paid 9% stamp duty. Everyone looks at property price increases from 2012, the low of the market. Some of us have not had huge net worth benefit from property price increases (although did benefit from low interest rates).
If you own a house worth a million euros and have a pension fund worth in excess of a million euros then you are wealthy. You mightn’t have a high incomes but that’s a different thing. Such a person isn’t taxed on their wealth and pays very little income tax. Those are the people who are under taxed.
They are not. Most wealth is tied up in Capital Assets which have a use value.Referring to the house worth a million.
How is the owner - say a person in their late forties with kids in school and a job that ties them to Dublin - supposed to monetise that wealth?
I don't think that would be in any way desirable.Perhaps the answer is that the person should be taxed to the point that they are forced out of their house and to move, say, a cheaper location in the midlands with a two hour commute, upending their kids and the rest of their lives.
I agree. My view is that we should be building one based on equality of opportunity. If that's the desired objective then we should incentivise hard work rather than inherited wealth.I'm not dismissing that - but I think we should be very clear about what kind of society we are trying to build through tax incentives.
In that case you are factually incorrect.Two tangential points:
- In my view, a principal private residence is an expense and liability, not an asset.
That's the case in every developed country in the world. In Irelands case that is more pronounced because we have a very progressive income tax system, less attractive tax treatments of investments, very few deductions against income tax for other taxes and very low rates in property tax.- Those in charge of governance over many decades have built a society where the vast majority of people's wealth is tied up in principal private residences. Are the citizens now to be punished for that explicit policy?
We can make certain that it is so regarded by taxing capital gains on the PPR at 100%. Is that what you think we should do? I'm guessing not but, we then we have to ask, why not?In my view, a principal private residence should be viewed as an expense and liability (opportunity cost of capital, property tax, insurance, maintenance and upkeep), not an asset.
I don't think property taxes are a punishment. The truth is that property derives much of its capital value from services and facilities provided at the expense, or partly at the expense, of taxpayers. While you can argue the pros and cons of property taxes by which property owners pay, at least in part, for the services that enhance the value of their property, but I don't think we can reasonably call them a punishment.Those in charge of governance over many decades have built a society where the vast majority of people's wealth is tied up in principal private residences. Are the citizens now to be punished for that explicit policy? Again - you can say "well they voted for it" - but that is too simplistic.
Pensions, rent a room scheme, etcSuch as?
These are not tax avoidance schemes.Pensions, rent a room scheme, etc
Referring to the house worth a million.
How is the owner - say a person in their late forties with kids in school and a job that ties them to Dublin - supposed to monetise that wealth?
A lot of people bought houses in 2004-2008 that are only now (in Dublin) just about worth more than we paid - and we paid 9% stamp duty.
In most places property tax rate is set of what budget is required from it.
If a city needs €1bn from property tax, has 1m residents with an average home value of €100,000 then you set property tax a 1%.
No stamp duty for second hand house under 317500 if my memory is right.paid zero in stamp duty
I bought in the early 2000's and paid 9% Stamp Duty. If there was no Stamp Duty the house would have cost 9% more, at least. There was no net extra outlay. If anything the high level of Stamp Duty depressed the price of the house.Are you sure about that?
I bought in 2005, and paid zero in stamp duty.
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?