11 1 min 13 yrs

 What a draconian and arrogant idea this is…

“The tax on second properties in the Irish Republic should be increased by the Government and all monies raised by it should be shared between central and local government, Chambers Ireland said today.

The organisation, which represents over 12,000 businesses across the country, said the €200 levy on second properties, introduced in the Budget in October, should be increased to generate revenue and help offset the recent collapse in tax revenues. This would incentivise both parties to adopt strong collection and enforcement policies while also reducing cost pressures on business by providing alternative revenue streams to local authorities,” Chambers Ireland chief executive Ian Talbot said.

Why should property owners be punished to help falling tax revenues? Will this not simply further accelerate the collapse of property prices? I cannot see how increasing taxation will help anyone and I think this is a daft idea.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

11 thoughts on “IN A RECESSION, TAX MORE?

  1. You’re quite right. Those with the drive and initiative to acquire two (or more) homes should be rewarded by being exempted from tax altogether. Tax should be levied primarily on those with only one house but with a punitive surcharge being imposed on the homeless.

  2. Poor Jimmy – seeing things I did not write yet again. The issue is why should those with the drive and initiative to acquire two (or more) properties be targeted with EXTRA taxation?

  3. You mean why would governemnt choose to tax those with money rather than those without? It’s a puzzler isn’t it?

  4. David –

    It is the right course of action. There are no rates or council taxes in Ireland. 350,000 properties lie vacant, there is no incentive to rent them or sell them. Property prices are still way above fair value after the mother of all bubbles. Ireland will recover faster when house prices bottom.

    The government should abolish the punitive, once-off, stamp duty tax and replace it with an annual property tax that funds the services provided to the property.

    Many of the investors who will pay the tax on second homes made killings during the boom, all those targeted participated directly in the bubble that has brought our country to the verge of bankruptcy. It is morally right that they contribute to the cure..

  5. David

    I have never understood the rational of taxing property. Daft. I don’t have a problem with taxing income (excpet that it is not spent properly) but it is just plain daft to tax you on your posessions, especially picking on housing.

    Why if I had a house worth £500,000 would that put me in the frame for tax but if I have a £500,000 diamomd ring it wouldn’t have.

    JS
    "You’re quite right. Those with the drive and initiative to acquire two (or more) homes should be rewarded by being exempted from tax altogether. Tax should be levied primarily on those with only one house but with a punitive surcharge being imposed on the homeless."

    This comment has little logical connection to what David posted

    "You mean why would governemnt choose to tax those with money rather than those without? It’s a puzzler isn’t it?"

    Why on earth would you think he meant that? It is a puzzler as to why the gov would choose to tax on possessions (not money) rather than income

  6. Mack

    "The government should abolish the punitive, once-off, stamp duty tax and replace it with an annual property tax that funds the services provided to the property."

    If it is related to services provided to the property it isn’t really a tax. However that makes more sence than taxing someone just for owning something. Paying your way is another matter.

  7. Aileen,

    "It is a puzzler as to why the gov would choose to tax on possessions (not money) rather than income"

    Not entirely, because preserving the value of people’s wealth isn’t free. Someone with an expensive house and possessions has more to lose if their wealth isn’t protected, and more to gain if it is. It’s not obvious why they should get this benefit for nothing.

  8. Frank

    Why should my diamond’s value be preserved for free and my house not?

    As for getting a benefit for nothing – why should someone pay for a benefit that they haven’t asked for?

  9. Aileen,

    "Why should my diamond’s value be preserved for free and my house not?"

    Never said it should. But most of most people’s wealth is in their house.

    "As for getting a benefit for nothing – why should someone pay for a benefit that they haven’t asked for?"

    Because it’s impossible to exclude people from receiving certain benefits, i.e. public goods. If people could opt out of paying for them then everyone would, and they wouldn’t be provided.

  10. Frank

    I know you didn’t say but the thread isabout taxing property

    If you are talking about paying for public services then that is paid for because it needs to be provided (or that is the theory), not because of who is getting the benefit.

    I don’t actually think that preserving the value of people’s wealth is something that has to be done, unlike healthcare and defence

  11. At this stage, there’s probably no-one still here but..

    Aileen

    Yep. The roads to your house need to be built / maintained ditto for sewage, the Gardai who proect your neighbourhood need paid ditto the firemen. Money for schools, youth clubs and parks needs to come from somewhere. It’s actually one of the nicest things about southern Ireland is the preservation of parks and green areas even in the cities (in stark contrast to my experience of Belfast), this does incur a cost & I think it’s worth maintaining.

Comments are closed.