Sir, – Kurt Tidmore (August 28th) misses the point when he suggests property tax should be calculated on the “worth” of the property. The worth of the property is relevant only if the property is to be sold. I purchased an apartment at the height of the property boom. I did not buy that property to sell it on, or to add to any existing property portfolio. I bought it as my home and it will continue to be my home. Mr Tidmore’s suggestion that I should be taxed more on my 71sq m apartment than someone living in a 200sq m house in the midlands because of a fluctuating market’s perception of its worth is ludicrous.
I have no problem in paying a property tax. I believe it is my civic duty as a citizen of this country to do so. But the only fair way of taxing people on a property that is their primary family home is by square footage. Any additional investment properties where an income is made could then be taxed on that income. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Some months ago, I invited representatives from three well-known estate agents to value my home. To my amazement, the figures that were presented to me reflected a disparity of €100,000 between the lowest and highest valuation. For the purposes of the new property tax, who will decide the value of our homes? If estate agents are to be tasked with this, I know which one I shall be recommending for the position! – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Media reports suggest our property tax will be calculated at a half of 1 per cent of “valuation”. Ignoring the problem in assessing what a current valuation is, the proposal would disproportionately tax urban dwellers.
Assuming the last Central Statistics Office national average house price of €247,000, the average property tax would be €1,235 per year. Reducing the valuation element of the tax to a quarter of a per cent, and levying a tax of three to four euro per square metre of floor area, would yield roughly the same revenue, without discrimination between rural and urban housing. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The working area of a house is fixed and it can only change with planning approval. Given that energy use increases with the size of the house, this tax could be geared to discourage the building of houses larger than needed by normal families at a time when we are being pressured to reduce our carbon footprints. In order to bring in a reasonable and transparent element of variation based on location, as with rates, there could be a local multiplier based on postcode, when established. It would also be possible to take account of negative equity. The result of an arrangement like this would be a relatively fair and transparent system that could be easily regulated and varied as changing conditions required, but not in an uncontrolled and arbitrary way as happened before and which was seen to be grossly unfair and politically unsustainable. – Yours, etc,