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.
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.
Sorry, I don't get your question?
You are saying that DCC's comments are hollow because Dublin enjoys more economies of scale.
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.
You'll have to ask those questions of those who decided that the property tax would be levied on the basis of property value.
I said DCC's comments are hollow because they ignore the fact that Dublin enjoys more economies of scale
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.
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.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 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?
Really? It's rather obvious that I have commented on a lot more than the headline?
As if it matters a whit...
,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'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.