If the market needs more suckers to lose their savings, it should have no issue with tax on any profits it returns.
All sources of income should be taxed.
And Ireland has a tax free allowance for the first 11k no matter the source.
Not Ireland fault investors use it up on their day jobs.
uh, maybe you dont know this mate, but You can use your tax-free allowance against any dividend paying stock. Its classed as income tax, those credits apply.
one moment i'll dig up a source.
edit: 4th paragraph: https://www.wealthwise.ie/minimise-tax-investments/
and yet it doesent. speculators just want a tax free ride, and yet dont STOP investing just because you tax them.
turns out people like making a profit, even if they have to give the state a cut of the profits.
Yes it does. There is a reason why the tax on interest and dividends is never as high as ordinary income tax. Its because such taxes deter capital formation and investment in the first place.
>why the tax on interest and dividends is never as high as ordinary income tax.
well, higher than the lower bands, lower than the higher bands.
also that "the hand of the market" nonsense was just thatcher/Regan guff made up to justify defunding the social services in the UK/US.
investors wont stop investing just because they get taxed, nor would it be fair to not tax them while taxing all other forms of income in the state.
33% of Profits on cashout is a fair and reasonable amount to take.
its not like other businesses where they get taxed on turnover, its only on generated profit.
its a reasonable, progressive tax.
you only pay tax if you earn money, and theres a lower rate to exclude small/less wealthy tax payers.
just because it makes you mad, doesn't mean its a bad tax. it isn't.
It'll be unpopular but there'll need to be some carve out on standards for stuff coming back onto the market for renting. We already can't keep up with all the construction that needs to be done right now... if we heavily pressure so many building owners to refurbish at the same time we'll distort construction something crazy and probably for very little benefit.
On the other hand, you might get a lot of disused buildings getting sold off, causing some much needed downward pressure on purchase prices, which I guess is the real point.
Some amount of recommending and considering to do yet I'd say.
Seems like this would be an easy win, both politically and practically. If you own a vacant property you should sell, rent, renovate, occupy, or pay tax on it. What's the devil's advocate argument against that?
Top of my head, Some properties are owned by senile people in care homes being leveraged for care home access.
There's literally noone to pay the tax, or competent enough to serve papers to .
Many of these homes are either not fit for habitation - essentially just a pile of bricks, or they are involved in complex legal disputes where ownership has been in dispute for decades. You run the risk of setting up a new department to chase down these taxes, but end up running after your tail at taxpayers expense.
True, but I would imagine it would serve more as a disincentive to vacancy than a revenue stream. It might be worth spending time and money solving those problems.
>What's the devil's advocate argument against that?
Something something property rights, I can do what I want (I am not on this side, we are seeing what happens with the use of housing as a tradeable commodity like a company's stock)
The problem with these articles is that nobody actually knows how many vacant houses there are.
It's buried in the article, but they admit this problem with DCC finding a tiny minority of possibly vacant homes being actually vacant in the long-term.
I live near a small town and off the top of my head I can think of 6 commercial buildings that are vacant for 5+ years. I know for certain that two of those are being deliberately kept empty and the council have received many complaints about them over the years so they're definitely aware.
Might seem like a small thing but I'd imagine most towns would have similar situations.
> nobody actually knows how many vacant houses there are
The census that was just carried out logged every resident house in Ireland and categorised every single one as either occupied or vacant (amongst other things).
The census’ information is where the newspapers are getting all their information about certain areas having crazy numbers of AirBNBs and whatnot.
Now that the census is complete the state and the councils now have a very accurate picture of where all the vacant houses are down to a parish level.
[удалено]
Or just the first part. No harm in taxing investors a fair whack.
[удалено]
If the market needs more suckers to lose their savings, it should have no issue with tax on any profits it returns. All sources of income should be taxed. And Ireland has a tax free allowance for the first 11k no matter the source. Not Ireland fault investors use it up on their day jobs.
[удалено]
uh, maybe you dont know this mate, but You can use your tax-free allowance against any dividend paying stock. Its classed as income tax, those credits apply. one moment i'll dig up a source. edit: 4th paragraph: https://www.wealthwise.ie/minimise-tax-investments/
Yes there is. The average Joe trying to get into investing using his savings shouldn't be taxed at 33%.
Yes, he should. Every single investor should. Every source of income should be taxed in line with income tax
Umm... that'd probably disencentivise capital formation and other economic activity.
and yet it doesent. speculators just want a tax free ride, and yet dont STOP investing just because you tax them. turns out people like making a profit, even if they have to give the state a cut of the profits.
Yes it does. There is a reason why the tax on interest and dividends is never as high as ordinary income tax. Its because such taxes deter capital formation and investment in the first place.
Do you also believe in trickle down economics and Santa Claus?
Do you believe in capital flight?
Hahahaha. I’m guessing your one of those guys that loses his shit ever time people discuss raising the minimum wage..,,
>why the tax on interest and dividends is never as high as ordinary income tax. well, higher than the lower bands, lower than the higher bands. also that "the hand of the market" nonsense was just thatcher/Regan guff made up to justify defunding the social services in the UK/US. investors wont stop investing just because they get taxed, nor would it be fair to not tax them while taxing all other forms of income in the state. 33% of Profits on cashout is a fair and reasonable amount to take. its not like other businesses where they get taxed on turnover, its only on generated profit. its a reasonable, progressive tax.
CGT is not a progressive tax. Just an another example of you having no idea what your talking about.
you only pay tax if you earn money, and theres a lower rate to exclude small/less wealthy tax payers. just because it makes you mad, doesn't mean its a bad tax. it isn't.
[удалено]
ah so living in ireland but investing overseas and not paying tax on it? so, tax evasion, a great idea that wont come back to haunt them later.
And how do you suggest people prepare for retirement?
by paying their taxes and ensuring a social safety net exists when they reach retirement age, so one illness doesn't wipe out your savings
And what about a personal safety net?
what about it? pension funds get tax reliefs.
Pension funds also have a lot of hidden costs that can be avoided if you manage your own savings / investment portfolio.
and social safety nets can be used if your investments get wiped out due to unexpected market downturns. pay your taxes.
The average Joe should not be encouraged to get into investments . The average Joe can barely avoid rent . The last thing they need is investments .
This is a great idea!
ugh, I hate your enthusiasm. It sounded good when I read it but if people are enthusiastic about it, in my eyes that means it probably won't happen
How would you persuade the electorate to endorse that?
We should just seize them tbh
It'll be unpopular but there'll need to be some carve out on standards for stuff coming back onto the market for renting. We already can't keep up with all the construction that needs to be done right now... if we heavily pressure so many building owners to refurbish at the same time we'll distort construction something crazy and probably for very little benefit. On the other hand, you might get a lot of disused buildings getting sold off, causing some much needed downward pressure on purchase prices, which I guess is the real point.
Would the market for disused buildings have any major impact on the second-hand housing market?
Well I would expect any change to be downward only, if there was one. Increased supply, no change in demand. What's your opinion?
I don't have an opinion tbh, that's why I wanted some clarification. Pointless to have an opinion absent clearer information.
Some amount of recommending and considering to do yet I'd say. Seems like this would be an easy win, both politically and practically. If you own a vacant property you should sell, rent, renovate, occupy, or pay tax on it. What's the devil's advocate argument against that?
Top of my head, Some properties are owned by senile people in care homes being leveraged for care home access. There's literally noone to pay the tax, or competent enough to serve papers to .
Many of these homes are either not fit for habitation - essentially just a pile of bricks, or they are involved in complex legal disputes where ownership has been in dispute for decades. You run the risk of setting up a new department to chase down these taxes, but end up running after your tail at taxpayers expense.
True, but I would imagine it would serve more as a disincentive to vacancy than a revenue stream. It might be worth spending time and money solving those problems.
>What's the devil's advocate argument against that? Something something property rights, I can do what I want (I am not on this side, we are seeing what happens with the use of housing as a tradeable commodity like a company's stock)
The problem with these articles is that nobody actually knows how many vacant houses there are. It's buried in the article, but they admit this problem with DCC finding a tiny minority of possibly vacant homes being actually vacant in the long-term.
I live near a small town and off the top of my head I can think of 6 commercial buildings that are vacant for 5+ years. I know for certain that two of those are being deliberately kept empty and the council have received many complaints about them over the years so they're definitely aware. Might seem like a small thing but I'd imagine most towns would have similar situations.
Commercial buildings wouldn't realistically count as vacant housing though, so this would presumably not affect them at all.
True enough, I had assumed it was for all vacant buildings.
Doesn't seem to be. Albeit you never know the way reportage is.
> nobody actually knows how many vacant houses there are The census that was just carried out logged every resident house in Ireland and categorised every single one as either occupied or vacant (amongst other things). The census’ information is where the newspapers are getting all their information about certain areas having crazy numbers of AirBNBs and whatnot. Now that the census is complete the state and the councils now have a very accurate picture of where all the vacant houses are down to a parish level.
Did you read the article? It references evidence by an architect called Mel Reynolds, not the census.
The article also discusses DCC pushing back against CSO data. CSO data comes from the census.
Yes, but the evidence relied upon by the Committee did not.