Thursday, September 27, 2012

LVT in Ireland

The Frontline looks at the contentious issue of property tax

LVT & House Prices debated in Ireland, not a great debate but at least the issue is in the media

Posted by pete green @ 10:16 PM (1268 views)
Please complete the required fields.

5 thoughts on “LVT in Ireland

  • I’ve not watched it yet, but I’m guessing poor widows in mansions, army of surveyors, paid out of taxed income, attack on aspiration, why does a big house in the country pay less than a small one in town, it’s all the bankers’ and the EU’s fault, no ability to pay etc.

    Please complete the required fields.

  • During the boom you had to pay a lot of stamp duty which was supposed to cover local services, water and electricity connections also cost a lot of money.
    People who paid the stamp duty are arguing aginst the tax since they believe that they already paid it. Another problem with the low tax regime during the boom was that people overextended themselves to a point where they will struggle to pay increased taxes. If the taxes were implemented during or before the boom then there would be less problems now.

    Please complete the required fields.

  • Khards, OK then, give people a credit for stamp duty paid in last ten years, so if you paid EUR 5,000 in stamp duty and the tax on your house is EUR 1,000, you get the next five years exempt.

    As to timing, yes of course, it is best to do it at the bottom of the house price cycle, but this can also be fixed by e.g. giving people a reduction for mortgage interest paid for mortgages taken out pre-introduction.

    Please complete the required fields.

  • If you have to pay a fee to a landlord for the privilege to live near the station, why is yours the mandatory payment to improve it?

    Unfortunately because 60% of the country see themselves as potential landlords ! How about just cutting to the quick and advocating non-payment of tax which is a choice people can make for themselves. The government spends too much, you don’t reason with unruly spenders, you stop paying them. The land value tax, which to be fair, has got zero chance of ever being carried out in the UK, ignores the underlying problem that the UK state spends 50% of GDP, through regressive transfers while providing extremely poor services, and is currently heading to being busted out. Alterating the source of revenue may have related benefits but the problem is state spending surely.

    Why not have a big poster with a tin of Heinz beans say your -second- tax on this item is 20%, please vote for smaller government.

    Please complete the required fields.

  • ST: “the UK state spends 50% of GDP”

    Not quite true. Out of total spending of £700 billion odd…
    – a tenth is proper good core functions spending (police, defence, immigration control, roads, refuse collection, fire brigade, social workers etc),
    – thirty per cent is straight cash redistribution (a bit of welfare and a lot of pensions),
    – thirty per cent is cost of services supplied (NHS and education, and yes, state provision is not very good but taxpayer funding of public goods like education or low cost mass insurance for healthcare seems fair enough) and
    – thirty per cent is outright theft, wate, overspend (EU contributions, third world ‘aid’, nanny state advertising, PFI, cost overruns on e.g. Olympics or HS2, council chief exec’s on six figure salaries, quangoes, corporate subsidies, banking subsidies, Housing Benefit, the list is endless and there are lots of small items on it).

    – So the first £70 billion, fair enough, that’s good stuff.
    – Welfare payments and old age pensions, yes, could be simplified or merged with tax free personal allowance to save churn, but this is not the end of the world, I’d rather that my taxes go to keep eight pensioners or twenty unemployed people warm and fed than one quangista like Will Hutton.
    – Education – better dealt with by vouchers or ‘money follows the pupil’ and the NHS is just low-cost mass insurance, only about a fifth of the NHS budget is actually wasted (excessive salaries at the top, PFI, nanny state advertising, translating leaflets into a hundred languages etc).
    – The last thirty per cent we are agreed on, just get rid of it. We can get state spending down by this amount by dusting down departmental budgets for 2003-04, adding on a few per cent for inflation and re-instating them.

    Job done.

    Please complete the required fields.

Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>