Discussion: "Why Dubliners should pay more in property tax" from publicpolicy.ie

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,198
An interesting article from [broken link removed]


 
Let's start at the top! Transport. In 2011 Bus Eireann & Dublin Bus got €110m of which €45m was for Bus Eireann. There was a further €10m for Rural Transport Programmes and a mind boggling €185m for schools transport. How much of the schools transport is funding the people in Dublin? It would be very interesting to see the subsidies of the Dart & Irish Rail to see what they are and make the Dublin / Country divide.

People in Dublin have 'better access' as they live in a densely populated area. The amount of subsidy may be equal or higher for rural dwellers due to the much higher cost of delivering services to a wide geography. This does not justify city dwellers paying a multiple of rural dwellers in taxes as that is not proportionate to the tax spending.
 
The notion that Bus Eireann (or indeed intercity Irish Rail) subsidies benefit rural dwellers is frankly laughable.

Whether or not one qualifies for subsidised school transport seems to be an accident of geography.
 
A couple more that could be added to the list
  • Wages in Dublin are often significantly higher than those paid elsewhere for the same job.
  • Those in rural areas often have to pay for their own services (such as water, sewage, etc.)
 
I wasn't convinced by the article. It says that people in Dublin have already paid a higher purchase price because of the available services and agrees with this. It goes on to say that they should pay for those again through an increased property tax.

If I'm right in understanding that the property tax will go to local authorities and not central government, why is it being calculated at a national rate? Would it not make more sense for each local authority to decide, based on it's budget for the following year, how much money they need to collect and then levy the property tax based on that? It could still be based on property value but the actual amount being collected would be based on what they need.

In theory, the current system could end up with a figure which is high enough to support Leitrim CoCo's budgetary requirements but which is surplus to requirements for the Dublin authorities. Or, if the amount is reduced to a realistic level for Dublin, could leave Leitrim underfunded.
 
T McGibney said:
The notion that Bus Eireann (or indeed intercity Irish Rail) subsidies benefit rural dwellers is frankly laughable.
Click to expand...
The demarcation was between Dublin and non-Dublin dwellers. I am not sure I understand your point that people outside of Dublin do not benefit from Bus Eireann?

T McGibney said:
Whether or not one qualifies for subsidised school transport seems to be an accident of geography.
Click to expand...

Some would argue that whether you pay €100 or €1,000 in property tax is an 'accident of geography', people bought houses long ago in the countryside that are now suburbs due to urban sprawl.
 
If the premise was 'Why dubliners have a better standard of living' the content of the article might amount to a more appropriate justification.
 
Turning that the other way;
Rural dwellers should have to pay more for Motor tax as they use the roads more than those in urban areas! i do 5,000m p.a and pay the same as someone that does 25,000.
I accept that lots of city dwellers cover more mls than me, but generally, rural dwellers averages are much higher. Therefore they use the roads more and should pay more for the use of the infastructure.
IMO, its the same arguement as greater/easier access to services for urban dwellers.
 

And many (me included) would agree on that Luternau. Those that use the roads should pay more - precisely why the current motor tax system is unfair and many (me included) would prefer the motor tax to come purely from the tax take on petrol/diesel.
On a side note, I do find the idea of "fair" tax a bit of a contradiction in terms anyway. Tax will always be unfair to a portion of society, there is no way around that.
 
ontour said:
The demarcation was between Dublin and non-Dublin dwellers. I am not sure I understand your point that people outside of Dublin do not benefit from Bus Eireann?
Click to expand...
My point is clear: the vast majority of rural dwellers neither use nor benefit from Bus Eireann services.

Let me illustrate with reference to Cavan. If you exclude routes to and from Dublin, the Bus Eireann services in Cavan, for example, are negligible. Apart from students (whose spending generates a lot of trade in the Dublin economy) and OAPs, the vast majority of people who want to go to Dublin will drive the 1.5 hours max journey on the N3 and M3. The hourly 109 bus on that route takes over 2.5 hours. So even this service, to which Bus Eireann commit massive resources, is of very little benefit to Cavan residents.

The same pattern is repeated countrywide, notably Galway where private coaches like Citylink have all but destroyed Bus Eireann on the M4/M6 route.


Some would argue that whether you pay €100 or €1,000 in property tax is an 'accident of geography', people bought houses long ago in the countryside that are now suburbs due to urban sprawl.
Click to expand...
My point exactly.
 
All those people on low incomes, but happen to own their own properties in Dublin, would be hardest hit by this.
 
Ceist Beag said:
I do find the idea of "fair" tax a bit of a contradiction in terms anyway.
Click to expand...

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I always find it amusing when someone declares (with seeming authority) that a tax is fair.

The statement is generally either preceeded with:
Case 1) A massive amount of research, based on a false (or totally subjective) premise
Case 2) An anecdote, which is often a random (or extreme) occurance.

In this case, the argument has been relatively successfully made by publicpolicy.ie (after what I can only assume to have been much huffing and puffing!) that Dubliners tend to enjoy closer proximity to stuff.

Ergo (here come's the subjective / false bit), dubliners should pay more of a particular tax whose rationale for existance is not entirely clear or justified.

An example of case 2 might be where someone argues that the bus service in Cavan is terrible and most people don't use it. Ergo, Dubliners should pay more property tax, case closed!
 
DerKaiser said:
An example of case 2 might be where someone argues that the bus service in Cavan is terrible and most people don't use it. Ergo, Dubliners should pay more property tax, case closed!
Click to expand...

I never actually said that Dubliners should pay more property tax . I just said that Bus Eireann subsidies don't benefit the vast majority of rural dwellers.

I've said here and elsewhere that the property tax is a recipe for disaster in a ruined economy with a dysfunctional property market. Its introduction should not take place until the economy and property markets recover and until and unless the overhang of massive personal debt is resolved.
 
So if the bus stop is outside my door, the library is 100m to my left, the swimming pool is 100m to my right I can walk on a safe footpath all the way to either and have my sewage slide into the public sewer I should pay €150.

If I live in Leitrim and have to pay for a taxi to the bus stop which is 4 miles from my house, the taxi-man gives out on the journey all the way to the bus because of the potholes he hit on my road, then I pay for the bus to the library at my own expense, only to come home to find a bill for registering my septic tank. I pay €150 too.

Only in Ireland.
 
DerKaiser said:
...
In this case, the argument has been relatively successfully made by publicpolicy.ie (after what I can only assume to have been much huffing and puffing!) that Dubliners tend to enjoy closer proximity to stuff....!
Click to expand...

I dunno about successful. Its a very one sided argument. Any advantage is offset by the increased property and living costs in Dublin. People took advantage of this by building larger properties in the country for the price of a smaller home in Dublin. People in Dublin paid the price by paying more, or downsizing.

The tax should be based on people ability to pay and the value of the property. Weighting by location is already built into that.
 
Footpaths, libraries, parks etc. all cost money and those with more access should pay more seems to be a widely held argument. Local councils are funded by fees, levies & taxes. Each council should budget what they need from the property tax and collect 135% of that amount. All very similar to the current plan, the difference being that the tax is based on the cost of running the council in that area. If Cavan has no facilities, it should require a lot less funds so the residents of that area will pay less. People in areas with a wide range of services would pay more. The additional 35% collected would go in to a central fund to go to capital or disadvantaged projects.

A problem is the people who live in managed developments who now pay for their street lighting, grounds maintenance, public liability etc.
 
Am I the only one who sees this being some kind of funding for local government as a sham ? It's just another tax. I'd say most of the arguments here about it don't or won't hold much water as we will just revert to the old style 'add all to the pot and dish it out depending on who shouts the loudest'. For examples see TV license.
 
ontour said:
....f Cavan has no facilities, it should require a lot less funds so the residents of that area will pay less. People in areas with a wide range of services would pay more....
Click to expand...

Isn't the problem that sparsely populated counties don't have enough of a tax take to pay for the services they do get anyway. Which is the reason for the general pot in the first place. Also the costs are not comparible between a county small in area with a big population, vs one with a big area and sparsely populated.

As elcato says its just another tax. Its semantics what its called. Its just a means of avoiding increases to income tax.
 
Quite agree. In our case (Ireland Inc [In Administration]) this is simply a political avoidance to lump more on income tax. We lost control of our finances and this is the consequences. Aritiguing about the symantics of service and value for money is irrelivant. Of course it not fair it just ticks a box for our IMF and EU masters.
 

It's only rural dwellers that use Bus Éireann, not residents of Dublin - they use Dublin Bus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register