Property taxes

Last Thursday, Tim Callan and I presented our views on the property tax. This attracted some media attention in the Times, RTE, and Independent (2, 3). The papers are here and here.

Higher taxes are unavoidable. Property taxes are less bad for economic growth than are higher income taxes. It therefore makes sense to replace the stamp duty with a property tax. There are two snags to this.

First, a property tax is regressive. Poorer people would pay a greater share of their income in tax. This can be repaired, either in the design of the property tax itself (e.g., income-dependent exemptions or a non-linear tax) or through changes in income taxes and benefits.

Second, a property tax should be based on the value of a house. The Revenue does not know this value, and building up the required data will take a few years at least. The government may be tempted to introduce a flat tax instead, or use self-assessment. A flat tax is very regressive. Self-assessment without proper sanctions rewards dishonesty. It is feasible, however, to introduce a property tax based on assessed values, and assess the value using simple rules (e.g., county and size).

A property tax would hit people who are income-poor but property-rich. It would act as an incentive to mobilise their wealth.

(family matters delayed this post)

Thomas McDermott on Climate Bill

A guest post by Thomas McDermott
Climate change is a real and significant threat to human welfare, particularly in the poorest parts of the world. While an effective ‘solution’ to this threat will require global cooperation over a sustained period of time, this is no excuse for not acting now to begin the process of reducing our dependence on carbon-intensive activities.
Ireland has a great record of leading the world in initiatives aimed at reducing global poverty. This work should be complemented and reinforced by action on climate change. Ireland could take the lead in demonstrating to other rich countries (and the rapidly developing ’emerging economies’) that reducing carbon emissions can be achieved without jeopardising economic or social welfare. In fact, these goals can be enhanced by such initiatives. This is not only the morally right thing to do, it is also in our interests. Such leadership would help to restore Ireland’s image internationally, which has been so tarnished by the excesses, greed and corruption of our recent economic boom and bust. At the same time, intelligent climate legislation could provide an additional source of revenue for government, while potentially improving our competitiveness over the long-term.
Unfortunately, the proposed Climate Change Bill produced by The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security (and due to be debated in the Dail today, Thursday), will not achieve any of these worthy goals. The proposed bill would legislate for ambitious emissions reduction targets, with the Taoiseach responsible for ensuring that these targets are achieved. The Taoiseach would also indicate what levels of emissions he/she expects each year. How is the Taoiseach to predict annual emissions levels or to enforce any such medium to long-term targets? This is equivalent to imposing legislation that requires the Taoiseach to predict levels of economic growth each year, or somehow to enforce medium to long-term economic targets.
Unless this legislation envisages an entirely new, centrally-planned economic system in this country, I do not see how its objectives can be achieved.
Legislation of this nature will do two things:

1) It provides a convenient sound-bite for politicians to hide behind. It is relatively easy to say “we have proposed/introduced legislation that will force emissions to fall by x% by 2050” etc. without actually specifying how such targets will be achieved (i.e. without having to stand up to various interest groups who may stand to lose from specific climate-related legislation).
2) Such a law obliges the presiding government to make various interventions to attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Crucially, however, it leaves the choice of specific interventions as a purely political decision. How will the government of the day decide how and where to reduce emissions? On what basis? We surely should be sufficiently well chastened in this country by recent experience of political interventions in the property sector (in the form of tax breaks etc.) to understand what a dangerous scenario this type of legislation will create.

We should not allow politicians the convenience of meaningless targets to hide behind, or the opportunity to use climate change legislation as a means of making themselves and their friends better off in the next round of crony-political-economy.

Setting ambitious long-term targets might sound good, but in reality this does not provide any greater certainty to businesses, investors, or consumers, simply because such targets are purely aspirational and are not credible without specific measures to achieve them.

The optimal climate change policy from both an equity and an efficiency perspective is to place a tax on carbon emissions, and allow people to choose the best way for them of reducing carbon dependency. This would obviously have revenue raising potential – revenue that is so desperately needed right now – while any potential threat to vulnerable people could be mitigated by using part of the revenue raised to provide reimbursements to those on low-incomes. Taxes are never popular, but the people of Ireland are acutely aware right now that taxes must rise. In every crisis there lies opportunity. If only we had the courage to embrace this one.

Air quality

The EPA has released the latest of its annual reports on air quality. Its a technical report, and the media highlight different things. The Examiner reports that Irish air is best. The Times reports that some of Dublin’s air exceeds the NO2 limit. Both are true.

The Independent reports that smoky coal may soon be banned. That is speculation. The EPA report concludes that the ban on smoky coal has improved urban air quality; and argues that a nation-wide ban would be good for environment and health. The current ban is peculiar: It is a ban on selling smoky coal in cities — rather than on burning. The Solid Fuel Trade Group, who sell smoky coal, argue that a nationwide ban would not be effective, because people would smuggle coal from the North. As Dubliners do not smuggle large amounts of smoky coal from Meath into Dublin, chances are that cross-border smuggling would be limited too.

Offshore wind

Irish 10-year bonds are at 7.6%

The Minister for Energy has just launched a plan for a drastic expansion of offshore wind, wave, and tidal power.

Power generation is a capital intensive industry, renewables are particularly capital intensive, and offshore wind comes top.

There are not enough jobs in Ireland and capital is exceedingly expensive. We need projects that create jobs but don’t take a lot of capital.

Minister Ryan said “Every megawatt of renewable energy that goes onto the Irish national grid reduces our €6 billion annual fossil fuel bill [..].” Government subsidies for import substitution do not stimulate economic growth.

The plan that was put up for public consultation mostly concerns things that will be decided by the Dail after next. It does propose a REFIT for offshore wind: 14 cent per kilowatthour. That’s above the retail price of electricity.

Portrait of a market

With Irish 10-year bonds at 7.601%, a little escapism is called for: Federico Etro has a nice piece on the market for art.