Why do you think that?It doesn't reduce the cost of purchase, no more than a cheap printer deal tied to expensive ink use reduces the cost of purchasing a printer.
Because that's a transaction tax which is only paid by the people who buy the 1% of properties which change hands. A wealth tax is fairer and less volatile.Why not just increase stamp duty instead? (At least if it backfires, it's easier to reverse than LPT).
Because it's a truism that the cost of purchasing any property, especially a home, involves more than the price you pay to acquire it.Why do you think that?
You're not proposing a wealth tax though.Because that's a transaction tax which is only paid by the people who buy the 1% of properties which change hands. A wealth tax is fairer and less volatile.
Yes, but that doesn't explain why you thing it doesn't reduce the cost of purchase.Because it's a truism that the cost of purchasing any property, especially a home, involves more than the price you pay to acquire it.
Most wealth is held in the form of property. A property tax is the best form of wealth tax.You're not proposing a wealth tax though.
That's the question alright. I suppose the answer has a lot to do with how economically productive the children will be in the future.Where's the sweet spot purple.. . Plenty of families around me with both parents working in well paid jobs with 3/4 kids?
There's 10 billion people on the planet. The population will top out at around 11-12 billion. There's more than enough resources for us all if we just use them correctly but that topic's been covered on plenty of other threads.With the climate changes (disaster) on its way, ireland may become a very attractive destination in the not to distant future fot net migration... If only we humans could solve the bloody housing issues
I can't read your mind. You've claimed that it would without explaining your full reasoning. Perhaps you're assuming that a property tax hike will cause house prices to drop disproportionately, but if you are, you haven't said that.Yes, but that doesn't explain why you think it doesn't reduce the cost of purchase.
Possible but questionable. I'd have thought that totals in cash and equities combined would be more, but I may be wrong.Most wealth is held in the form of property.
Again questionable. And that assumes we actually need a wealth tax.A property tax is the best form of wealth tax.
You said that "It doesn't reduce the cost of purchase". Why do you think that a higher property tax which, as I've already proposed, would be progressive, wouldn't have an impact on house prices?I can't read your mind. You've claimed that it would without explaining your full reasoning. Perhaps you're assuming that a property tax hike will cause house prices to drop disproportionately, but if you are, you haven't said that.
"Housing accounts for the bulk of household wealth , valued at €555 billion and it accounts around two thirds of all assets held by households.Possible but questionable. I'd have thought that totals in cash and equities combined would be more, but I may be wrong.
Yes, it's my opinion and this is a discussion forum. I've already said that I'm in favour of a reduction in tax on wealth creation and an increase in tax on wealth retention.Again questionable. And that assumes we actually need a wealth tax.
Selective quote.You said that "It doesn't reduce the cost of purchase"
It might well affect house prices, but not the cost of buying a house. You haven't clarified that.. Why do you think that a higher property tax which, as I've already proposed, would be progressive, wouldn't have an impact on house prices?
That source is inaccessible. Does it factor in for example, pension entitlements?"Housing accounts for the bulk of household wealth , valued at €555 billion and it accounts around two thirds of all assets held by households.
Taking account of debt attached to housing, the net figure is still comfortably over half of all net wealth." Source
Yes, opinion.Yes, it's my opinion and this is a discussion forum. I've already said that I'm in favour of a reduction in tax on wealth creation and an increase in tax on wealth retention.
I know. It was selected to show the point you were making.Selective quote.
Do you mean the total costs associated with buying the house or the total cost of ownership over the lifetime of that ownership?It might well affect house prices, but not the cost of buying a house. You haven't clarified that.
They take private DB pension values into account but not State pensions. There are discussions elsewhere on AAM about it.That source is inaccessible. Does it factor in for example, pension entitlements?
Now you're getting it!Yes, opinion.
Do you mean the total costs associated with buying the house or the total cost of ownership over the lifetime of that ownership?
I'm talking about the former, the cost of purchase. That's when people with young families have the least wealth and the highest outgoings.Both, obviously.
Which are you counting, and why?
...which are typically spread over decades with the help of a mortgage.I'm talking about the former, the cost of purchase. That's when people with young families have the least wealth and the highest outgoings.
But most home owners haven't created their wealth. They have benefitted from a massive increase in house prices which was driven by a massive increase in money supply which was the result of QE. It takes a special type of delusion by a person to think that they are sitting in houses worth 5 times what they paid for it and with pension fund that has more than doubled in value over the last 6-7 years by virtue of their own hard work, intellect and ingenuity. Think of property tax as a small contribution to the people who have to pay for all of that because that house and pension value is down to luck and an unimaginable burden of debt which has been foisted on future generations.A person who created their own wealth...especially in the form of a roof over their and dependants heads for stability purposes (the PPR not investments), and which has already been taxed (frequently at 52%) does deserve to retain said wealth and not be forced down specific pathways.
You are ignoring the other part of the proposal where the revenue from the increases in property tax are used to offset the cost of making mortgage interest tax deductible. One part acts to depress prices in the entire market while the other offers targeted a benefit to buyers....which are typically spread over decades with the help of a mortgage.
And that's why when they're buying, they and their finance provider have to concentrate not on the price per se but on future affordability, ie the lifetime cost, which is impacted by any material hikes in property tax and other costs.
I am because as I said yesterday in this country tax breaks are temporary while tax hikes are permanent. The mooted tax-deductibility of PPR mortgage interest wouldn't last 2 difficult Budgets and probably not even one.You are ignoring the other part of the proposal where the revenue from the increases in property tax are used to offset the cost of making mortgage interest tax deductible.
For the nth time, prices are irrelevant. The new buyer will inevitably be worse off when (not if) their mortgage interest tax deduction is curbed and then scrapped.One part acts to depress prices in the entire market while the other offers targeted a benefit to buyers.
It's not an insult. You may well have created the wealth to buy the home but the increase in the price of the home had nothing to do with you.Nice insults. I created the wealth to purchase the home.
So you're not opposed to the proposal, you're opposed to what you think will happen to the proposal. Is that correct? That's a completely different thing.I am because as I said yesterday in this country tax breaks are temporary while tax hikes are permanent. The mooted tax-deductibility of PPR mortgage interest wouldn't last 2 difficult Budgets and probably not even one.
For the nth time, prices are irrelevant. The new buyer will inevitably be worse off when (not if) their mortgage interest tax deduction is curbed and then scrapped.
I'm opposed to it because on the basis of 30+ years experience, I know with reasonably certainty how it would play out in the medium/longer term.So you're not opposed to the proposal, you're opposed to what you think will happen to the proposal. Is that correct? That's a completely different thing.
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?