Comments

  1. roc

    Great to hear the arguments for a SVT put nice and succinctly in a national newspaper. If the national debate could just move on from talking about ‘property tax’ to talking about ‘SVT or LVT’, then the public’s considerations and ideas would have to evolve (considering the strength of the arguments to be made). I’d just add that we already have the needed property database in the land registry office. A little bit of work is all that would be required to make it fit for purpose.

  2. idij

    Who determines value? The market? All that does is price people out of the area that they have lived all their lives and worked to make nice.

    Land tax should take account of occupancy. Reasonable sized occupied site should generate no tax regardless of location (and regardless of whether it is owner occupied or let)

  3. Robert Browne

    I don’t want to give any of these delinquent finance ministers any more taxes to squander. Please put your brain to work on how the people who have been screwed by Ahern, McCreevy, Cowen, Lenihan can be saved from more of their ruinous schemes and idiotic waste of taxes. Hint! NAMA, ANGO, ANGOLA HSE, BANK RESCUES,PONZI UNFUNDED PUBLIC SERVANTS PENSIONS of 108bn. You are a great man at socializing bank losses, extend and pretend stuff, while telling the ordinary punter he has to pay up. No, he does not have to, he can refuse and bring the whole rotten edifice down. You seem to live in some kind of la, la land that says it is OK to socialise losses of banks that it is OK to add those losses to negative equity, bank share wipeout, sovereign debt interest bills plus a raft of stealth taxes. That the ordinary punter can do all this even as they wave goodbye to the value of their unguaranteed pensions and in many cases their jobs. That is some arrogance!

    It is not the taxes per se, that is the problem it is the squandering of the tax. Tax for the sake of keeping a corrupt system of public servants and their buddies in the unions over payed is no longer an option. Social partnership was nothing more than divvying out the “Fund” mentioned in the constitution which consists of A + B where A is all we can raise in taxes and B = all we can borrow in the sovereign name!

    The game is well and truly up for this threadbare “strategy” of barely legalised state usury. The government have neither moral or legal authority to tax and waste. Furthermore, the banking system your company interacts with needs both goodwill and confidence to function. It has neither. How could it have? It has incinerated 50bn of shareholder value. Last year, on the Irish economy blog you told me that bond holders loved it when governments were scared! Now, that the sovereign debt crisis is a direct resulted of scared governments taking on the debts of profligate banks do you still think it is such a good idea? I told you then that it would threaten the very existence of the EZ. Eventually, the state would be better off with one or two functioning state banks rather than pouring money down black sink holes such as Anglo et al.

    I presume all NAMA assets would be hit with your suggested tax. So the public has to pay for the bank rescue, pay for the bad bank NAMA SPV (not amenable to FOI) put up with its eventulal 12bn losses (Constantine) And, while NAMA HOLDS on for the LTEV stuff, your suggestion is to hit them with a site value tax? Paid for by whom? umm…. good thinking!

  4. @idij there are many different valuation methods, and by using site value only you can avoid much of the hedonic issues that would go with property tax based on specific valuations (to avoid same you could use banding the way they do in the u.k.) I think the occupancy idea you have would result in everybody feeling they are being hard done by, what determines ‘reasonable’

    @Robert Browne: you mistook my support for property tax as an urge to give the state more money to squander, the single caveat from the start is that we would in turn pay less income tax.

    My support for NAMA isn’t about wanting to give banks money, my core belief is that banks that fail should close and be sold off, I said as much in many radio interviews, but when your state comes out and says ‘we are doing solution X’ then you can’t really turn around and not do it because then you have failed banking (which of itself is hard but doable) and a failed state who doesn’t keep their word and it is in that manner that you go basket case.

    I don’t have a state job, my pension is private, I suffer the same losses as everybody else and do so in an industry which is seeing established companies close on a near daily basis, for that reason I think your comment is perhaps a little emotive rather than factual.

    Sadly the public always pays, there is no other fallback, but don’t mistake my opinions with my beliefs, I just have a definite division between ‘is’ and ‘ought’, I comment on what is rather than what ought to be.

Leave a Comment

Awesome! You've decided to leave a comment. Please keep in mind that comments are moderated.

*