They'd more likely do what they usually do and introduce the tax whilst keeping stamp duty in place which is a great trick of their's. It would be amazingly unfair now to go after those who are just about sitting tight in their home with rising interest rates and disproportionate utility bill rises that the Govt keeps on sanctioning. There's a fair argument against stamp duty for first time buyers and any purchase of a sole primary family residence but as a tax on investors I see no problem with it. The fact the Govt has nothing in the kitty at all after benefitting from an unprecedented property boom is negligent at best. To heap further misery on those that are just trying to live would be bring down a Govt so couldn't see it happening. Its obvious there's not much more they can squeeze out of Joe Soap and they themselves need to make major savings as it seems to me the vast majority of working class people are. Maybe for once in the history of the state they might finally start tackling the antiquated financial blackhole thats a massive drain on the economy. When the public service cuts were announced the other week the general reaction was it wasn't enough (when you see IBEC asking a reduction in the min wage). I heard civil servants ring in to radio shows fully agreeing with observers about the blatant wastage and inefficiency that goes on or to be more blunt people simply doing little or no work that can't be fired. I think Cowen was delighted with this as supposedly he recognises what the story is and the potential for cutting spending is massive. Whether its actually possible for a temporary Government to make real in-roads in reforming the "permanent Government" in a term is another thing. But when you see the state of private pensions and then what public servants get in comparison to what they have to do for it he'd have the backing of an awful lot of people including people in the system who would rather promotion was performance related. BTW benchmarking is a load of smokescreened hogwash. It only created more useless paperwork having people doing yet more work that benefits nobody. A bit of a tangent but when I hear of anything that puts more pressure on already pressurised situations I have to shake my head after witnessing the wastage that goes on with the money thats collected from hard working people. I contracted for Government agencies and thats how most of the work gets done. No doubt a lot of those contracts will not be renewed which will ironically drastically cut productivity. Maybe that might expose more how abused the employment system is then.
Not exactly on topic but I thought it was an interesting view of a tax system... Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!''Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got''That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!''Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics University of Georgia
Can't see it going ahead, it would be one of the most unpopular moves ever. The country fought long and hard to own our own land...........they'll hardly put up with them taxing it!