# Dubliners get up to 50 times less funding than rural dwellers



## monagt (19 Mar 2014)

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/dubliners-get-up-to-50-times-less-funding-than-rural-dwellers-1.1730130

Time to write to Labour Ministers.........this is shocking!


----------



## T McGibney (19 Mar 2014)

An analysis by Dublin City Council finds that Dublin City Council isn't getting enough money.


----------



## cork (19 Mar 2014)

Most of the money collected is not going to fund local services.

If this government is interested in a fair taxation system - it should look at the effective corporate tax rate.


----------



## Sunny (19 Mar 2014)

T McGibney said:


> An analysis by Dublin City Council finds that Dublin City Council isn't getting enough money.


 
It also found that Cork and other urban centres weren't getting their fair share as well so not sure why you are accusing the report of having Dublin bias. And it shows that within Dublin, Fingal is a lot worse off than Dublin City so not sure Dublin City Council can be accused of bias either.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Mar 2014)

Sunny said:


> It also found that Cork and other urban centres weren't getting their fair share as well so not sure why you are accusing the report of having Dublin bias. And it shows that within Dublin, Fingal is a lot worse off than Dublin City so not sure Dublin City Council can be accused of bias either.



It's as clear as day that Dublin City Council, who prepared the report, are utterly biased - although I can't blame them for wanting as big a slice of the pie as they can get.


----------



## Sunny (19 Mar 2014)

T McGibney said:


> It's as clear as day that Dublin City Council, who prepared the report, are utterly biased - although I can't blame them for wanting as big a slice of the pie as they can get.


 
What part of the report is biased? Even the Government acknowledge the issue although they say is temporary for this year.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Mar 2014)

Sunny said:


> What part of the report is biased? Even the Government acknowledge the issue although they say is temporary for this year.



The report is inherently biased in that Dublin City Council, who prepared the report, stand to gain directly by the implementation of its recommendations. This is clearly the case regardless of whether or not one agrees with those recommendations.


----------



## Sunny (19 Mar 2014)

T McGibney said:


> The report is inherently biased in that Dublin City Council, who prepared the report, stand to gain directly by the implementation of its recommendations. This is clearly the case regardless of whether or not one agrees with those recommendations.


 
What recommendations? There weren't any.


----------



## Purple (19 Mar 2014)

I don't see the issue here, areas with a low population density always got more state funding per head than areas with higher population density.


----------



## Sunny (19 Mar 2014)

Purple said:


> I don't see the issue here, areas with a low population density always got more state funding per head than areas with higher population density.


 
That's not the problem. 20% of the LPT was supposed to be witheld by Government and shared out between councils as needs be. 80% was supposed to be spent in the area that it was received which was what the whole idea of a LPT was based on. The Government aren't doing that this year despite promising but they are claiming that they will do it from 2015 onwards. I remain to be convinced.


----------



## Purple (19 Mar 2014)

Sunny said:


> That's not the problem. 20% of the LPT was supposed to be witheld for  and shared out between councils. 80% was supposed to be spent in the area that it was received which was what the whole idea of a LPT was based on. The Government aren't doing that this year despite promising but they are claiming that they will do it from 2015 onwards. I remain to be convinced.



Yea, but did anyone really think this was going to happen?

This is just another tax to pay wages for council employees, just as bin charges were brought in to pay for Benchmarking pay increases. It's all just tax. Water charges will be the same. 

With marginal income tax rates at 55% and people reaching the highest tax band at a lower relative income rate than any other country in the OECD bar Israel there's no more room to tax "the rich", i.e. people a little over the average industrial wage. Therefore it's indirect taxes such as water charges, bin charges, credit card fees, etc. that are the way to go. The double taxation of pensions (income tax on the way in and the way out), the pension levy's, cuts in health insurance tax allowances etc. are all in place so there's nowhere else to go for more money.


----------



## Betsy Og (20 Mar 2014)

The logical conclusion inferred is that everyone should move to Dublin and look at the money we'd save (and/or let the culchies fend for themselves).

Having lived in Dublin I'm not convinced it is a model of everything good in urban living - although it probably has improved since I was there (pre Luas days) when the traffic was pure murder. I hear this morning Dublin is expected to double in size - OMG as ye might say up there, that wont be pretty.

Spatial strategy anyone?, balanced development anyone?

Also, the principle of tax is redistribution of wealth. Should the denizens of Foxrock, who I dare say are massive net contributors to the state coffers insist that their money be kept within their "parish". No?, but applying that logic to the Dublin Area Vs the rest of the country somehow seems to make perfect sense..........

Most of the jobs in Ireland are in the greater Dublin area, what are ye complaining about.

Finally, isnt it fairly obvious that Dublin will have more of everything, more crime, more justice system costs, more welfare, more tax paid. There are only so many roads (for example) in Dublin to spend council funds on, the fact that the spending per head is lower does not mean less service is delivered or that Dubliners are being disadvantaged.


----------



## Sunny (20 Mar 2014)

Betsy Og said:


> The logical conclusion inferred is that everyone should move to Dublin and look at the money we'd save (and/or let the culchies fend for themselves).
> 
> Having lived in Dublin I'm not convinced it is a model of everything good in urban living - although it probably has improved since I was there (pre Luas days) when the traffic was pure murder. I hear this morning Dublin is expected to double in size - OMG as ye might say up there, that wont be pretty.
> 
> ...


 
Again, you are missing the point and I don't see how you can reach the logical conclusion that you reached. It has nothing to do with per capita spending. Of course somewhere like Leitrim will always have a higher per capita spending than Dublin. That's logical and nobody is giving out about it.  

The issue is that this tax was called the *LOCAL* prtoperty tax because 80% of the money raised was supposed to be spent in the area that it was collected in and 20% was supposed to go into the central pot. 

There is already distribution of tax wealth from urban centres to rural areas and nobody is complaining about it. The issue is with this specific tax that was sold on the idea on that it would fund *LOCAL* amenities. 

This isn't a Dublin v Country Argument. Dublin is spilt into four council areas and the same argument applies.


----------



## Betsy Og (20 Mar 2014)

Sunny said:


> Again, you are missing the point and I don't see how you can reach the logical conclusion that you reached. It has nothing to do with per capita spending. Of course somewhere like Leitrim will always have a higher per capita spending than Dublin. That's logical and nobody is giving out about it.


 
Fair enough, I accept your point. 

What I would say is that that point isn't being emphasised in the media, for example on the Last Word it was set up very much as a Dublin Vs the country debate, it was all presented as "Why is Dublin subsidising the country?" It probably makes better radio, but it does explain why culchies are on the defensive when that is the tone of debate being presented to them.


----------



## T McGibney (20 Mar 2014)

This isn't a Dublin v Country issue, but it suits Dublin City Council to pretend that it is such in order to maximise their own coffers. 

If Dublin City Council cared a whit about the tax burden on their own citizens, they wouldn't be charging €2.90 per hour for parking throughout the city, even in out-of-the-way areas.


----------



## Purple (20 Mar 2014)

T McGibney said:


> If Dublin City Council cared a whit about the tax burden on their own citizens, they wouldn't be charging €2.90 per hour for parking throughout the city, even in out-of-the-way areas.


They need to increase revenue because of reductions in receipts from rates as they cannot cut their direct costs (they cannot cut wages and they cannot make employees redundant).


----------



## Sunny (20 Mar 2014)

T McGibney said:


> This isn't a Dublin v Country issue, but it suits Dublin City Council to pretend that it is such in order to maximise their own coffers.
> 
> If Dublin City Council cared a whit about the tax burden on their own citizens, they wouldn't be charging €2.90 per hour for parking throughout the city, even in out-of-the-way areas.



I am completely lost now. Where was Dublin city Council giving out about the tax burden. The issue was where the tax was going, not the tax itself. 

And unless parking charges go towards paying for the local swimming pool in Leitrim, I really don't get the point.


----------



## T McGibney (21 Mar 2014)

Sunny said:


> I am completely lost now. Where was Dublin city Council giving out about the tax burden. The issue was where the tax was going, not the tax itself.
> 
> And unless parking charges go towards paying for the local swimming pool in Leitrim, I really don't get the point.



The point is that DCC act in their own interests, not in the interests of their citizens. So their "Dubliners are getting ripped off" moans are self-serving and hollow. (Remember this is the same outfit who recently agreed target-based bonuses with their clamping contractors.)


----------



## Purple (21 Mar 2014)

T McGibney said:


> The point is that DCC act in their own interests, not in the interests of their citizens. So their "Dubliners are getting ripped off" moans are self-serving and hollow.



Of course they are self serving but they are also self evident; the statistics they have highlighted are facts and are not contested by anyone. In what way do you think they are hollow?


----------



## T McGibney (21 Mar 2014)

Purple said:


> Of course they are self serving but they are also self evident; the statistics they have highlighted are facts and are not contested by anyone. In what way do you think they are hollow?



They ignore the obvious economies of scale which cities enjoy.


----------



## Purple (21 Mar 2014)

T McGibney said:


> They ignore the obvious economies of scale which cities enjoy.



True but the real question should then be why are people in Dublin paying higher property taxes than anyone else in the country? If there are economies of scale in the provision of services (and we all agree that there are) then should there not also be proportionately lower property taxes in higher density urban areas?

The thing that grates here is that house prices in Dublin impact more on local services in Leitrim than they do on services in Dublin.


----------



## T McGibney (21 Mar 2014)

Purple said:


> True but the real question should then be why are people in Dublin paying higher property taxes than anyone else in the country? If there are economies of scale in the provision of services (and we all agree that there are) then should there not also be proportionately lower property taxes in higher density urban areas?
> 
> The thing that grates here is that house prices in Dublin impact more on local services in Leitrim than they do on services in Dublin.



You'll have to ask those questions of those who decided that the property tax would be levied on the basis of property value. 

There probably is an argument too that city dwellers have access to many more amenities than their country cousins, and that this is reflected in respective property values.


----------



## Purple (21 Mar 2014)

T McGibney said:


> You'll have to ask those questions of those who decided that the property tax would be levied on the basis of property value.
> 
> There probably is an argument too that city dwellers have access to many more amenities than their country cousins, and that this is reflected in respective property values.



That's true, so why tax them more as well?


----------



## T McGibney (21 Mar 2014)

Sorry, I don't get your question?


----------



## Purple (21 Mar 2014)

T McGibney said:


> Sorry, I don't get your question?



You are saying that DCC's comments are hollow because Dublin enjoys more economies of scale. I don't see the link. 
Why tax people more because they paid more for their houses when the cost of delivering services is lower? Unless of course this is really a wealth tax and not a property tax.


----------



## T McGibney (21 Mar 2014)

Purple said:


> You are saying that DCC's comments are hollow because Dublin enjoys more economies of scale.



No, I'm not. 

I said DCC's comments are hollow because they ignore the fact that Dublin enjoys more economies of scale



Purple said:


> Why tax people more because they paid more for their houses when the  cost of delivering services is lower? Unless of course this is really a  wealth tax and not a property tax.




As I said earlier...


T McGibney said:


> You'll have to ask those questions of those  who decided that the property tax would be levied on the basis of  property value.


----------



## Purple (21 Mar 2014)

T McGibney said:


> I said DCC's comments are hollow because they ignore the fact that Dublin enjoys more economies of scale



How does that make their comments hollow?


----------



## T McGibney (21 Mar 2014)

At the risk of repeating myself to the point of boredom, because their review totally ignores the economies of scale factor. For a body with such large numbers of highly paid managers, this seems quite disingenuous.


----------



## Sunny (21 Mar 2014)

T McGibney said:


> At the risk of repeating myself to the point of boredom, because their review totally ignores the economies of scale factor. For a body with such large numbers of highly paid managers, this seems quite disingenuous.


 
What has economies of scale got to with this report? At the risk of repeating myself to the point of boredom, the council weren't giving out about the level of the tax. Everyone knows that people in Dublin will pay higher property tax than people in rural areas. The issue that Dublin City council were highlighting is that 80% of the money raised within Dublin City was supposed to go to Dublin City Council. Just like 80% of the money raised in Longford was supposed to go to Longford County Council. This is not happening this year so they are quiet rightly pointing it out. That's all the report says. It wasn't saying that rural people should pay more. It wasn't saying that rural councils should get less money or they should get more.


----------



## T McGibney (21 Mar 2014)

Sunny said:


> What has economies of scale got to with this report? At the risk of repeating myself to the point of boredom, the council weren't giving out about the level of the tax. Everyone knows that people in Dublin will pay higher property tax than people in rural areas. The issue that Dublin City council were highlighting is that 80% of the money raised within Dublin City was supposed to go to Dublin City Council. Just like 80% of the money raised in Longford was supposed to go to Longford County Council. This is not happening this year so they are quiet rightly pointing it out. *That's all the report says. It wasn't saying that rural people should pay more. It wasn't saying that rural councils should get less money or they should get more.*



Well the opening line of the article did say "_Dubliners are subsidising their country counterparts in the funding of  local services by up to 50 times, an analysis by Dublin City Council  shows_."

Does this misrepresent the DCC analysis?


----------



## Purple (24 Mar 2014)

T McGibney said:


> At the risk of repeating myself to the point of boredom, because their review totally ignores the economies of scale factor. For a body with such large numbers of highly paid managers, this seems quite disingenuous.


Ok, so it's just your opinion, formed not by the content of a report or the actual letter sent by DCC to Phil Hogan but on the headline that a newspaper spun. 
I haven't read the letter that DCC sent but I doubt that they engaged in, or sought to initiate, a policy debate with the Minister.


----------



## T McGibney (24 Mar 2014)

Purple said:


> Ok,* so it's just your opinion, formed not by the content of a report of the actual letter sent by DCC to Phil Hogan but on the headline that a newspaper spun. *
> I haven't read the letter that DCC sent but I doubt that they engaged in, or sought to initiate, a policy debate with the Minister.




How do you deduce that?


----------



## Purple (24 Mar 2014)

T McGibney said:


> How do you deduce that?



From what you've said in your posts.


----------



## T McGibney (24 Mar 2014)

Really? It's rather obvious that I have commented on a lot more than the headline?

As if it matters a whit...


----------



## Purple (24 Mar 2014)

T McGibney said:


> Really? It's rather obvious that I have commented on a lot more than the headline?
> 
> As if it matters a whit...



You haven't mentioned what other sources you are basing your comments on.


----------



## T McGibney (24 Mar 2014)

I've based it on the article linked, you've accused me of basing it merely on the headline, but you haven't backed up your accusation.

Given that you initally agreed with my earliest post here, 





Purple said:


> I don't see the issue here, areas with a low  population density always got more state funding per head than areas  with higher population density.


,
I'm at a loss to understand where you are coming from now.


----------



## Purple (24 Mar 2014)

T McGibney said:


> I've based it on the article linked, you've accused me of basing it merely on the headline, but you haven't backed up your accusation.
> 
> Given that you initally agreed with my earliest post here, ,
> I'm at a loss to understand where you are coming from now.



I don't see the issue with areas of low population density getting higher per capita funding for local services. That's what's always happened and always will happen, just as most income tax is collected from the top 5% of earners.

I disagree with your assertion that DCC's comments are hollow. They are factually accurate. 
The newspaper headline was somewhat sensationalist. As we don't have access to the letter sent by DCC it's not possible, in my opinion, to know if they were also sensationalist. 
If DCC were querying why the government had moved from its stated position (keeping most of the local taxes local) then it was a valid question. 
If anything was hollow (and stupid from the get-go) it was Phil Hogan speaking about something he didn't understand.


----------

