Originally Posted by GJG

Property taxation should be, in any given year, on the value of the asset in that year, on its owner(s) in that year. I don't see how that would be retrospective.

I do, however, agree with your general thrust, and I would allow any stamp duty paid by the owner of a property against site value tax that they are liable for on that property.

This would ease the burden on people who bought during the boom, and would allow us to catch out people who bought in false names or laundered money through property, or used tricks to avoid stamp duty.

Nevertheless, I don't agree with the principle of refunding people through the tax system for bad investment choices they made.

I don't think you get the thrust of what I am saying.

First of all, buying a home was not an investment decision for me - it was a natural part of life. I never sought to, nor considered making money on it.

My argument does not relate to stamp duty. My argument is that had I known at the time I bought home, that owning that home would subject me to a tax that I could avoid if I rented, then my decision to purchase the home may well have been a different one.

If my home was not in negative equity, I could now sell it and avoid the tax. More bizarrely, I could sell the home and not be subject to a single cent of tax on the profit.

Instead, however, I am trapped in a position of being unable to avoid a tax which is being applied to a transaction I entered years ago.

Not only is it unfair, it is idiotic and a perversion of the so-called claim that this is a tax on wealth.

Originally Posted by statsman

Won't somebody think of the children.

Jimmy Savile?

Originally Posted by GJG

When the plastic bag tax was introduced, their use fell by 93 per cent, pretty much instantly. The lesson is that taxes mould and shape economic activity.

Currently there is zero tax on wealth in the form of hoarded land and the tax on capital gains when it is sold is less - a lot less - than the marginal rate of tax that someone on minimum wage earns. The inevitable result of this is that economic investment, effort and talent is sucked out of the productive economy, and into an area that is a zero sum game for Ireland, even if it makes some individuals very wealthy.

Yelling "Taxing <my wealth> is IMMORAL" is simply special pleading, in this case from a section of society that is already hugely privileged, not only in abnormally low taxation, but also legislation, such as our hugely anti-tenant pro-landlord laws.

My home is not wealth . It is the place where i live it is not for sale . I am not a landlord i am not wealthy . I pay my tax to the taxman every month as a paye worker i am getting screwed on tax.

You want to tax wealth then tax it . Try a bank account tax one that taxes savings etc etc but then they would be uproar on that.
Taxing the roof over peoples head creates a very serious problem for the country.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned democrat

I think the plastic bag's a great analogy, but maybe not as you intended it - sure property tax = wealth tax, and as you rightly point out, once you tax something it usually disappears - 93% of the wealth will find ways of NOT being wealthy, or just leave the country, and then we'll be rightly phucked.

Exactly how will the rich move their mansions or stud farms to the Caymen Islands?

You are right, a site value tax will reduce the price of land. Have a look at what Irish agricultural land was fetching during the boom:

Note that only Ireland bucks the trend of land prices matching population density. Sure, that suits the millionaires, but it is a disaster for ordinary people in Ireland, and their employers who have to compete despite paying wages that can buy houses built on that land.

Make no mistake, no property tax is purely for the super-wealthy.

Originally Posted by ShoutingIsLeadership

Jimmy Savile?

Not on another thread, FFS. There are already 18, 543 on him. Or am I imagining it?

Originally Posted by statsman

Not on another thread, FFS. There are already 18, 543 on him. Or am I imagining it?

Makes a change from racist threads

Originally Posted by happytuesdays

Should we tax the Primary residence?

Yes. Where is Ivor Callelly's primary residence? Anywhere he says it is, and the same goes for anyone else.

Originally Posted by ShoutingIsLeadership

I don't think you get the thrust of what I am saying.

First of all, buying a home was not an investment decision for me - it was a natural part of life. I never sought to, nor considered making money on it.

My argument does not relate to stamp duty. My argument is that had I known at the time I bought home, that owning that home would subject me to a tax that I could avoid if I rented, then my decision to purchase the home may well have been a different one.

If my home was not in negative equity, I could now sell it and avoid the tax. More bizarrely, I could sell the home and not be subject to a single cent of tax on the profit.

Instead, however, I am trapped in a position of being unable to avoid a tax which is being applied to a transaction I entered years ago.

Not only is it unfair, it is idiotic and a perversion of the so-called claim that this is a tax on wealth.

The tax isn't being applied to the transaction, though, is it? It's being applied to an asset you purchased rather than to the act of purchasing it.

Originally Posted by ShoutingIsLeadership

Makes a change from racist threads

Only just.

Originally Posted by GJG

Exactly how will the rich move their mansions or stud farms to the Caymen Islands?

I'll go wherever my b1tch says I have to go