Taxing the Land

[Cael]

The land struggle and its semi-resolution caused a major transformation in the economic and social structure of the nation that still resonates today. As Vaughan states in his conclusion;

"Above all, the land ceased to be a source of revenue; in the 1860s for example, 25% of total Irish revenue was raised directly by taxes on land; in the course of the twentieth century, the expiry of land purchase annuities, the abolition of local government rates, and the growth of central government's assistance to agriculture have transformed the land into a net receiver of public revenue. "(P41)

Land Value Tax: Unfinished Business, by Emer O'Siochru


If the land supplied 25% of revenue in the 1860s, is it really unreasonable to ask landowners today to contribue to the public purse today?

[Cael]

Is there not an argument to be made that if the current owners of the land are so incompetant in its use that they cannot afford to contribute anything to society - but only be a drain on society, that they should no longer be allowed to have the land?

[Flynnster]

No there is no argument to be made in that vein at all. It is baseless and without any foundation what so ever other than your own narrow bias toward the "landed elite" as you so eloquently put it in another thread on a similar topic.

It just goes to show how little you know about how much farming contributes to the local and national economy.

[Moogie]

I would say that there is something to be said for your argument Cael. If I set up a business I'm expected to pay tax on any profit. If my business does not make a profit or make me a living then I'm expected to find another line of business. I'm not expected to keep my business assets while sticking the hand out for money from the tax payer indefinitely.

[sandar]

So basically Cael your argument is that we need less land under agriculture as it contributes nothing to the state.
I agree with that, but we must first make sure that we have something else in its place for those disaplced from the land to work at.

[Cael]

No there is no argument to be made in that vein at all. It is baseless and without any foundation what so ever other than your own narrow bias toward the "landed elite" as you so eloquently put it in another thread on a similar topic.

It just goes to show how little you know about how much farming contributes to the local and national economy.

I suppose all economic activity adds to the economy in some way, but other forms of economic activity are expected to generate tax revenue as well. Considering the land itself is by far the biggest capital asset in Ireland, is it not incredible that it is not able to generate any tax revenue - but most recieve subsidies instead?

[Cael]

So basically Cael your argument is that we need less land under agriculture as it contributes nothing to the state.
I agree with that, but we must first make sure that we have something else in its place for those disaplced from the land to work at.

That isnt my argument. My argument is that the current landowners are either incredibly incompetant, if they cannot generate enough revenue to pay taxes on, or that they can pay tax on the land but are being allowed off scot free for some reason. This is all the more curious considering that in the 1860s, when times were much harder and landowners werent getting incredible windfalls, land was able to contribute 25% of tax revenue.

[Flynnster]

Irish farmers pay tax along with recieving subsidies. Any subsidies are regarded as income for tax purposes and tax is calculated on a farmers entire annual income the same as any other profession.

Again this only serves to highlight the fact Cael that you really have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to farming.

[sandar]

they are incompotent in the sense that they are producing stuff that people do not need, they are producing too much, all of europe is, we need to end this oversupply of food, which means less people working in agriculture.

[Cael]

I would say that there is something to be said for your argument Cael. If I set up a business I'm expected to pay tax on any profit. If my business does not make a profit or make me a living then I'm expected to find another line of business. I'm not expected to keep my business assets while sticking the hand out for money from the tax payer indefinitely.

Yes, a chara, there seems to be some kind of sacred cow syndrome going on.