Why should I (we) pay the new Property Tax???

jenchussey

I am just livid with the talk of this new property tax. Basing it on the value of someone's home.... I know they havent'y yet clarified how or what exactly but its a definate by the sounds of things.
I built my home in 2010 and for the privialge of building it where I wanted I had to pay Meath Co.Co €11,893. The Planning Development Contribution. The description for this is;

The Planning and Development Act, 2000 provides for the adoption of a development contribution scheme, which must be the basis for charging all future development contributions. The making of a development contribution scheme is a reserved function. Section 48 of the Act commenced on 11th March 2002.
The Act outlines that a planning authority,when making a grant of permission may include a condition requiring the payment of a contribution in respect of public infrastructure and facilities. The Act also indicates that
such contributions may be related to works benefiting development in the “area of the planning authority” rather than facilitating the proposed development as in Section 26 (2) (h) of the Planning and Development Act 1963.
Section 48 (1) states that such contributions may be charged “regardless of other sources of funding for the infrastructure and facilities”. This means that funding from the State and the EU is also reckonable. It is considered that since the Act no longer attributes contributions to specific developments, and treats the county as a single system, the contributions levied may fund public infrastructure and facilities throughout the county.

The description being thrown about for the "Property Tax" is;

The EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support for Ireland commits the Government to the introduction of a property tax for 2012. We are one of the last countries in Europe that does not fund local services through local property-based charges.
These services are essential to your community. They include: fire and emergency services; maintenance and cleaning of streets; planning and development; public parks; street lighting; libraries; open spaces and leisure amenities. These facilities benefit everyone.
A property tax, requiring a comprehensive property valuation system, would take time to introduce and accordingly, to meet the requirements in the EU/IMF Programme, the Government has decided to introduce a Household Charge in 2012.The Household Charge is an interim measure only and a comprehensive and equitable valuation-based property tax will be introduced as soon as possible.

Now I paid the Household Charge, grudgingly mind, but I paid it. €100 is not that much in the scheme of things but I struggled to come up with it.
I built my own home in the place where I grew up, because I wanted my kids to have the same freedom and childhood as I did living in the country.
But I struggle to make the mortgage payments for that privialge, I can barley pay my monthly bills and if some random bill appears, like Oil or a service for the car, I'm screwed for about 3 months until I get myself back on track.
I paid my contribution to the County Council, for the local services and infrastructure.... why the hell should I have to pay more again, annually?

Sleepy

I'll just re-post what I posted on another thread this morning and bold the most relevant bit:

The amount of heads in the sand in this thread is frightening. We can't close the current deficit with cuts alone so we'll have to increase tax revenue. This can be done via increasing Income Tax (making it even harder for employers to create jobs and people to come off the live register); by increasing indirect taxation such as VAT, Duty etc. (driving Irish consumers over the border or onto the web as indigenous retailers become even more expensive and putting more jobs at risk) or by introducing a wealth tax, the most common form of which, is property tax.

One of the big advantages I see to a property tax is that it is levied on those who don't pay income tax in Ireland: the tax exiles, the artists who have huge wealth they never had to pay tax on, those who inherited so much wealth they don't bother to work etc.

I'd like to see such a tax allow for the equity people actually have in their properties (i.e. an exemption for those who's properties are in such negative equity that they are long term liabilities rather than assets) but before defining a system for waivers, I think it makes sense to determine the basis on which the tax is charged.

Ronan Lyons has a good article on it on his blog at the moment: here

The government provided idiots with a stick to beat them wtih when they said the household charge was to cover local services. It's not. It's just another tax that goes directly into the central coffers (in the same way that motor tax, duty on cigarettes and alcohol aren't directed solely to the upkeep of road and counteracting the health problems caused by those products).

The government are simply using the local authorities as collection agents for (who knows why, most of them have an awful track record when it comes to debt collection). This does have one benefit though: it provides a blunt mechanism for punishing those that aren't paying their share via reducing the services available to their area. It's pretty harsh if you've paid your household charge but happen to live in an area with a high percentage of tax-dodgers but it's broadly fair that the entire country doesn't suffer because the people of Offaly, for example, evade their taxes more than others.

Whether we should switch our system of taxation to one of ring-fenced taxes (where motorists pay the entire cost of road maintenance - idiotic given that non motorists also benefit from the roads existence, property tax pays for local services, income tax pays for the running of government departments, PRSI covers the welfare bill etc. etc. etc.) is a completely different debate. The facts are that the democratically elected government have decided to impose a household charge as a pre-cursor to a proper system of property tax. If you don't like this: tough. In a democracy you don't have the right to not pay your taxes because you don't agree with them: you get your chance to repeal those taxes by voting for someone else at the next election. Personally, I'd be in favour of removing any holder of public office who's evading this tax from office and stripping them of any remuneration or pension they've accrued during their time in that position.

You can argue the minutiae of this all you like but it doesn't change the reality: a legally elected government has imposed a legal charge/tax on it's citizens. If those citizens try to evade that charge, they're breaking the law and no whinging about the fairness of that law or how it's implemented excuses that.

tayto lover

Don't mind that old bulls***.
This is an attack on family homes and it should be fought tooth and nail by everyone. People are being punished for supplying themselves with a home in order that the bondholders/bankers and others who caused the problems should not lose out.
Stand up and refuse to allow this attack on your home. Like the HHC you will also receive NOTHING for the charge.

OU812

^ all rt well Sleepy, but let them stop the waste & cut costs first, then work out how much we need to plug.

Another year of intensive cost & wadte cutting, see how we stand then. After that, let's see how the deficit stands.

Next step is to introduce a new tax, not a property one, one which everyone irrespective of standard of income will pay - employed, self employed, unemployed, retired. A smaller amount with a larger net.

€400 per year (spread out over the year) will be a far more sustainable an acceptable tax than hitting those who are hardest hit already. It would also (most likely), lead to a much larger income for the government.

Everyone uses the services, why should those who rent (private or council) be excluded?

dvpower

jenchussey wrote: »

I paid my contribution to the County Council, for the local services and infrastructure.... why the hell should I have to pay more again, annually?

Because provision of local services is a recurring cost?

alastair

OU812 wrote: »

Everyone uses the services, why should those who rent (private or council) be excluded?

They're not - they're just exempt from the portion derived from ownership of property. Do you feel you/they should also be liable for commercial rates because you use local authority services too, despite not owning a commercial premisis?

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

People are being punished for supplying themselves with a home in order that the bondholders/bankers and others who caused the problems should not lose out.

As has been pointed out repeatedly - the tax increases are a consequence of the deficit - not the banks.
The overhead of the bank bailout - and consequent bondholder payments etc contribute less than 4.5% of your and my tax burden. Over 95% of the problem, and your tax payments have nothing to do with bondholders etc.

old boy

the household charge was impleminted without any thought or otherwiswe, hamfisted,the minister responsible was found to be invading the same tax on his holliday property overseas, he then proceeded to threathen non payers, the ordinary joe soap was hit the hardest which is why it has raised the hackles of most,t he most important thing to consider is that where ever the imf interviened they left behind only two classed, the rich and the poor, no middle working class, check out their legacy in russia and argentina. people on he streets selling their few precious belongings to buy bread, theose of you who have backpacked both countrys during their depression will tell the same story, to say it will tax the tax exiles is ok but at what expense, cripple financely more than four fifths of the population, the people that have been shelling out already, cutting off ones nose to spite ones face comes to mind.

alastair

old boy wrote: »

the minister responsible was found to be invading the same tax on his holliday property overseas

No he wasn't.

Sleepy

tayto lover wrote: »

Don't mind that old bulls***.
This is an attack on family homes and it should be fought tooth and nail by everyone. People are being punished for supplying themselves with a home in order that the bondholders/bankers and others who caused the problems should not lose out.
Stand up and refuse to allow this attack on your home. Like the HHC you will also receive NOTHING for the charge.

Seiously? That's the best response you can manage? Maybe Irish Economy isn't for you tbh.

After Hours is that way -->

Or, possibly more accurately, why not PM Grand_Rajnah and request access to the Ranting and Raving Forum.

later12

alastair wrote: »

As has been pointed out repeatedly - the tax increases are a consequence of the deficit - not the banks.
The overhead of the bank bailout - and consequent bondholder payments etc contribute less than 4.5% of your and my tax burden. Over 95% of the problem, and your tax payments have nothing to do with bondholders etc.

Do we really need to have this ludicrous tango every time the deficit comes up?

The above argument necessarily assumes that because the Bank Guarantee was notional & contingent, it has nothing to do with the sovereign's credit risk. It ignores how the subsumption of banking liabilities can alter the sovereign's risk profile.

Naive, to say the very least.

alastair

old boy wrote: »

t he most important thing to consider is that where ever the imf interviened they left behind only two classed, the rich and the poor, no middle working class, check out their legacy

And the UK? Their IMF bailout seems to have left an intact middle class.

alastair

later12 wrote: »

Do we really need to have this ludicrous tango every time the deficit comes up?

The above argument necessarily assumes that because the Bank Guarantee was notional & contingent, it has nothing to do with the sovereign's credit risk. It ignores how the subsumption of banking liabilities can alter the sovereign's risk profile.

Naive, to say the very least.

What has our sovereign credit rating got to do with our deficit burden? It's the same deficit regardless of where we're getting our loans from.

Farmer Pudsey

What the IMF are forcing us to do is not the issue rather it is the way the government apply it.

I agree that the bank/bondholders are not the main cause of deficit however bailing them out has caused the problems that we have to cope with to be a lot worse than they should be.

However OP you were one of the idiots that paid the tax did you really think that it would have remained at 100 euro. the reality is that the government want to take at least 1k in local charges from all housholds in the form water rates and tax

later12

alastair wrote: »

What has our sovereign credit rating got to do with our deficit burden? It's the same deficit regardless of where we're getting our loans from.

You miss the point.

The banking crisis has been the most expensive crisis since the 1930's when you look at the costs to Ireland's GDP & GNP. The IMF have put the fiscal cost of the banking crisis at 41% of GDP; this then causes the deficit to increase as a proportion of GDP, which is how we commonly measure a deficit.

Heroditas

There's a few things that bug me about the charge and they need to be clarified. My own opinion on it is:

1. The services indeed need to be paid for but we need to be specifically told what exactly we're funding, i.e. my bins are collected privately, I pay for electricity and gas, water will soon be metered. If we got a clear document stating what exactly my money will be funding in the local authority, it would ease the kick in the pills a bit

2. EVERYONE should pay the charge. Everybody benefits from the services so I should not have to subsidise others. This guff about social housing being exempt etc is infuriating. It just means that the middle earners cough up once again

3. How to calculate the tax.... should the tax be levied on property value or property size? A confusing one. How do council services vary based on the size or value of my house? Does it cost more to provide street lighting to identical houses if one is valued at €200k and the other at €400k? Seems a strange way of doing things. If the value of the house is supposed to show how people can afford to pay more, again... provision of services doesn't differentiate between this. Does a library cost more for someone with an expensive house than someone with a cheaper house?

Perhaps a flat rate is the best way of doing it but the rate may vary per county council.
What's particularly frustrating about this is that it's September and we're still getting plenty of kite flying and contradictory messages from ministers.
Just keep your traps shut and come to some sort of solution.

later12

Heroditas wrote: »

2. EVERYONE should pay the charge. Everybody benefits from the services so I should not have to subsidise others.

What about families who pay and maintain their own water supply, their own onsite sewage treatment (and pay a charge to the government for that, by the way), maintain their own environment and drainage and whose properties do not enjoy street lighting or footpaths?

If they are to pay the property charge for the main council services which they cannot access, they are subsidizing you.

alastair

later12 wrote: »

You miss the point.

The banking crisis has been the most expensive crisis since the 1930's when you look at the costs to Ireland's GDP & GNP. The IMF have put the fiscal cost of the banking crisis at 41% of GDP; this then causes the deficit to increase as a proportion of GDP, which is how we commonly measure a deficit.

There's a distinction between the banking crisis and the bank bailout though - the impact of the failure of the banks in a situation where they weren't recapitalised might well have been worse. The drop in actual GDP, didn't result from the bailout, but from the bubble economy bursting. We're still left with the reality that over 95% of your taxes are spent on activities unrelated to the bondholders, or other bank bailout overheads.

Heroditas

later12 wrote: »

What about families who pay and maintain their own water supply, their own onsite sewage treatment (and pay a charge to the government for that, by the way), maintain their own environment and drainage and whose properties do not enjoy street lighting or footpaths?

If they are to pay the property charge for a lot of services they cannot access, they are subsidizing you.

If they pay and maintain their own water supply, they should be exempt from the water charges when they're introduced.
Regarding the street lighting and footpaths - definitely you have a point but there's a lot more services like libraries etc that could be covered by the charge.

You've built on my point though - there needs to be a lot more clarity from the government as to what we are paying for, instead of a wishy washy "essential services" mantra.

It also shows what a joke the charge has become. We've gone so far down the road without introducing a charge and charging people for a lot of the services that it is (IMO) hard to justify introducing one at this late stage, certainly at the value that has been touted for the last few months.

alastair

later12 wrote: »

What about families who pay and maintain their own water supply, their own onsite sewage treatment (and pay a charge to the government for that, by the way), maintain their own environment and drainage and whose properties do not enjoy street lighting or footpaths?

If they are to pay the property charge for the main council services which they cannot access, they are subsidizing you.

Really? You think a one-off septic tank registration fee of a tenner or whatever is grounds for an exemption from paying for the gamut of local authority services (which are for your entire community - not you solely)?

alastair

Heroditas wrote: »

You've built on my point though - there needs to be a lot more clarity from the government as to what we are paying for, instead of a wishy washy "essential services" mantra.

Your local authority will have handy annual accounts and services info listed on their website. How much more clarity do you require?

later12

alastair wrote: »

Really? You think a one-off septic tank registration fee of a tenner or whatever is grounds for an exemption from paying for the gamut of local authority services (which are for your entire community - not you solely)?

No, and that's a straw man. Let us explore that straw man for a minute. Why on earth would you read that post as a suggestion that payment of the septic tank charge ought to be qualify individuals for an exemption in itself? Why would you possibly read that into the post, instead of the more obvious point that was explicitly stated, to wit, payment of the council tax by such individuals ends up subsidizing users of the main services.

The main thrust of the argument promoting the theory behind property tax which I have heard in an Irish context, and which is entirely legitimate & right & proper is that the provision of the main council services increases the value of homes within reach of those services. That is an entirely valid point. What is less valid is applying the same charges to people who cannot avail of these critical services.

tayto lover

Sleepy wrote: »

Seiously? That's the best response you can manage? Maybe Irish Economy isn't for you tbh.

After Hours is that way -->

Or, possibly more accurately, why not PM Grand_Rajnah and request access to the Ranting and Raving Forum.

You would probably agree with the "experts" who got us here then :rolleyes:

ArmaniJeanss

jenchussey wrote: »

I am just livid with the talk of this new property tax. Basing it on the value of someone's home.... I know they havent'y yet clarified how or what exactly but its a definate by the sounds of things.
I built my home in 2010 and for the privialge of building it where I wanted I had to pay Meath Co.Co €11,893. The Planning Development Contribution. The description for this is;

What ever the rights and wrongs of the proposed property tax, the €11,893 you paid doesn't make you particularly unique.
The 10,000s of people who bought estate houses in the suburbs of Dublin (and maybe other counties, I'm not sure) also paid high 4 or even 5 figure fees, though the payment was a little more indirect as it was paid by the builder who then passed it on to the purchaser of the new build in the total house price. But still effectively these levies were paid by the home owner.
Just annoys me when people who built their own houses believe these levies were something that only applied to them, and that therefore they should be exempt from some future charge.

Heroditas

alastair wrote: »

Your local authority will have handy annual accounts and services info listed on their website. How much more clarity do you require?

Do you say the same sort of thing to your customers or do you give them an invoice?

alastair

later12 wrote: »

No, and that's a straw man. Let us explore that straw man for a minute. Why on earth would you read that post as a suggestion that payment of the septic tank charge ought to be qualify individuals for an exemption in itself? Why would you possibly read that into the post, instead of the more obvious point that was explicitly stated, to wit, payment of the council tax by such individuals ends up subsidizing users of the main services.

The main thrust of the argument promoting the theory behind property tax which I have heard in an Irish context, and which is entirely legitimate & right & proper is that the provision of the main council services increases the value of homes within reach of those services. That is an entirely valid point. What is less valid is applying the same charges to people who cannot avail of these critical services.

And what's the consequence of those property owners who you believe (erroneously btw) don't receive added value from the provision of local authority services? If exemptions are a 'straw man'?

Sleepy

Well why not call a spade a spade then?

The property tax will not be exclusively used to fund local services. It's a wealth tax which will go back into the pot to try and bring together the difference between what we currently take in and what we currently spend.

Living in such a remote location that you are unable to avail of the services which urban dwellers can have provided for them by the state due to their higher population density does not exclude you from your duty to pay your taxes. As it stands, rural areas are net benefactors in terms of income re-distribution i.e. as perverse as it sounds, those areas that receive the most services are actually subsidising those with the least because they're the driving force of the economy. Their taxes more than meet the costs of the services they are provided with and the difference is spent subsidising the social welfare, education, emergency services, roads etc. enjoyed by those in the rural areas who's tax contributions wouldn't be able to cover the expense of providing them with their existing share of these things as they simply don't have the population density to support them.

alastair

Heroditas wrote: »

Do you say the same sort of thing to your customers or do you give them an invoice?

You're demanding your local authority replicate the same info from a freely accessible website for every householder and deliver it on a plate in a printed form? I thought you were interested in cost-savings?

Sleepy

tayto lover wrote: »

You would probably agree with the "experts" who got us here then :rolleyes:

Which experts? Fianna Fail? Never voted for them in my life.

The Troika who are telling FG/Labour that a property tax is a good idea? Yes, I do agree with them.

Red Clover

There is little or no wealth taxes in Ireland, as there is in every European country. We have one of the lowest rates of income tax in the Euro area.
It is time that the government brought in a proper property tax. That is a tax on all property; housing, commercial, industrial estates, farmland, churches etc. Commercial rates would have to be abolished and a value based tax on all property but on a sliding scale. Obviously a family home would be at the lowest rate (there could be some relief for people who took out mortgages between 2003 and 2008). A hundred acre hill farmer in Mayo would not pay the same rate as a a hundred acre farm in Meath or Limerick. This is not rocket science. It was done at the end of the 19th century (Griffith valuation etc). There is a public Valuation Office, what are they doing?

Heroditas

alastair wrote: »

You're demanding your local authority replicate the same info from a freely accessible website for every householder and deliver it on a plate in a printed form? I thought you were interested in cost-savings?

Does everyone have access to the internet?

warriorpoet

Sleepy wrote: »

Well why not call a spade a spade then?

The property tax will not be exclusively used to fund local services. It's a wealth tax which will go back into the pot to try and bring together the difference between what we currently take in and what we currently spend.

Living in such a remote location that you are unable to avail of the services which urban dwellers can have provided for them by the state due to their higher population density does not exclude you from your duty to pay your taxes. As it stands, rural areas are net benefactors in terms of income re-distribution i.e. as perverse as it sounds, those areas that receive the most services are actually subsidising those with the least because they're the driving force of the economy. Their taxes more than meet the costs of the services they are provided with and the difference is spent subsidising the social welfare, education, emergency services, roads etc. enjoyed by those in the rural areas who's tax contributions wouldn't be able to cover the expense of providing them with their existing share of these things as they simply don't have the population density to support them.

Very well put..... and don't mean to be overly simplistic, but it IS a property TAX, no matter how they propose to manage it - in the end of the day, taxes are taxes... everybody should pay.

alastair

Heroditas wrote: »

Does everyone have access to the internet?

Your local authority have libraries with free internet access. It's one of the services they provide. And you're still proposing that every householder be hand-delivered information that's already in the public domain?

Heroditas

alastair wrote: »

Your local authority have libraries with free internet access. It's one of the services they provide. And you're still proposing that every householder be hand-delivered information that's already in the public domain?

Does everyone have access to the internet?

Links please to where I stated information should be hand-delivered to every householder.

K-9

Just a reminder that this is the Politics Board, personal digs and pointless one liner type replies are frowned on in this forum. Basically, unless you've something of some note or substance to post, don't bother.

alastair

Heroditas wrote: »

Does everyone have access to the internet?

Sure they do - as I've already pointed out - via the library network. It's also on your smartphone - as owned by 49% of households in the state.

Heroditas wrote: »

Links please to where I stated information should be hand-delivered to every householder.

You don't like the fact that's it's available online for free - what is your alternative then?

The Bishop Basher

Heroditas wrote: »

Does everyone have access to the internet?

Links please to where I stated information should be hand-delivered to every householder.

And links to where this data is available. And I mean in the level of detail were talking about here. Let's say for Wicklow.

later12

alastair wrote: »

And what's the consequence of those property owners who you believe (erroneously btw) don't receive added value from the provision of local authority services? If exemptions are a 'straw man'?

I am seriously questioning whether you read that post. The first straw man was the suggestion that I said paying the septic tank charge ought to qualify rural dwellers beyond the reach of the main council services for a property charge exemption.

The second straw man, and this is a fine collection you're building, is the implication that I suggested rural dwellers in this situation do not benefit to any extent from local authority services. No. That is not what I am saying.

I am telling you that (a) rural dwellers beyond the reach of these critical services are not in a position where value is added to their property on foot of these critical services, (b) rural dwellers in this situation already go to significant expense to (quite cheerfully) provide these services for themselves and (c) while there is some value added to the value of these individuals' homes by way of less salient council services, this ought to be reflected in the bill by applying a lesser charge (not a total exemption) to property owners who cannot (and would probably dearly love to) avail of public water supply, waste treatment, drainage, or any of the other main services provided for by a local authority.

Sleepy wrote: »

Living in such a remote location that you are unable to avail of the services which urban dwellers can have provided for them by the state due to their higher population density does not exclude you from your duty to pay your taxes.

Of course not. And rural dwellers do pay taxes, and will end up paying the property tax. All that is being referred to here is whether or not it is fair to ask people to pay for a service they cannot receive. Now you may, and probably will, throw your hands up in the air and say that this is not a time to be considering equity or fairness, in which case I suggest that if it doesn't interest or concern you, move along.

Heroditas wrote: »

Does everyone have access to the internet?

Unfortunately it does seem particularly rife.

alastair

Swanner wrote: »

And links to where this data is available. And I mean in the level of detail were talking about here. Let's say for Wicklow.

http://www.wicklow.ie/apps/wicklowbeta/Sitemap.aspx
http://www.wicklow.ie/apps/wicklowbeta/Finance/Overview.aspx

Chips Lovell

The tax looks likely to be value based. Houses in remote areas are likely to be cheaper on average than those in urban areas. Therefore rural dwellers will pay proportionally less.

Heroditas

alastair wrote: »

Sure they do - as I've already pointed out - via the library network. It's also on your smartphone - as owned by 49% of households in the state.


You don't like the fact that's it's available online for free - what is your alternative then?

Can everyone actually make it down to their library? Is every person in this state physically capable of getting to a library to use the internet?
You must have some figures to back this up.
I haven't stated I don't like that it's available online for free.

If you're going to twist something out of what you perceive someone has said, you'll need to back it up.

alastair

later12 wrote: »

I am seriously questioning whether you read that post. The first straw man was the suggestion that I said paying the septic tank charge ought to qualify rural dwellers beyond the reach of the main council services for a property charge exemption.

Why bring it up then? Do you want a discount of a tenner for the first year's property tax?

later12 wrote: »

The second straw man, and this is a fine collection you're building, is the implication that I suggested rural dwellers in this situation do not benefit to any extent from local authority services. No. That is not what I am saying.

I am telling you that (a) rural dwellers beyond the reach of these critical services are not in a position where value is added to their property on foot of these critical services, (b) rural dwellers in this situation already go to significant expense to (quite cheerfully) provide these services for themselves and (c) while there is some value added to the value of these individuals' homes by way of less salient council services, this ought to be reflected in the bill by applying a lesser charge (not a total exemption) to property owners who cannot (and would probably dearly love to) avail of public water supply, waste treatment, drainage, or any of the other main services provided for by a local authority.

Aside from the notion that your specified services are the 'critical' ones, while others are 'less salient' - you're still ignoring the fact that your household benefits from all services provided by your local authority - even where some are not applicable to your individual household. I don't quibble about the services I don't/can't avail of - because I understand that they benefit the general community - and consequently the value of my property.

Heroditas

later12 wrote: »

Unfortunately it does seem particularly rife.

alastair

Heroditas wrote: »

Can everyone actually make it down to their library? Is every person in this state physically capable of getting to a library to use the internet?
You must have some figures to back this up.
I haven't stated I don't like that it's available online for free.

If you're going to twist something out of what you perceive someone has said, you'll need to back it up.

So - you are happy that the info is available in a comprehensive and freely accessible format? That's dealt with your first quibble then.

Maybe you'd like to specify what your mechanism for engaging with the immobile householder without internet access might be - and how you propose to target this audience?

The Bishop Basher

Interesting reading although it's abundantly clear there is considerable waste in current expenditure.

The procurment plan highlights significant savings opportunities but none of them are actually in place

I have no doubt that if we were to apply six sigma to the local coucils, their procceses and the ongoing waste, they could be made far more efficient. Problem is they just haven't had to do this in the way that every privately owned and run enterprise has.

As mentioned by a poster above, I would like to see the waste removed first, then let's identify the defecit and seek to close it with extra taxes.

Bringing this tax in now will just keep the boys in their jobs with no incentive to improve.

Heroditas

alastair wrote: »

Maybe you'd like to specify what your mechanism for engaging with the immobile householder without internet access might be - and how you propose to target this audience?

Is this actually the only part of my initial two posts you take umbrage with?

later12

alastair wrote: »

Aside from the notion that your specified services are the 'critical' ones, while others are 'less salient' - you're still ignring the fact that your household benefits from all services provided by your local authority

But you're having great difficulty with understanding that I'm not denying there is a benefit which falls on everybody, regardless of location. However, that is heavily skewed in favour of those living in population clusters whether in rural Irish villages or large cities. I don't think it would be particularly difficult, or indeed controversial, to have the tax take account of people who would apply for and be refused access to these main services.

alastair

Heroditas wrote: »

Is this actually the only part of my initial two posts you take umbrage with?

When you state:

If we got a clear document stating what exactly my money will be funding in the local authority, it would ease the kick in the pills a bit

It sure sounds like you aren't happy with the volumes of info already available to you via the local authority website.

But maybe I have it all wrong.

jenchussey

dvpower wrote: »

Because provision of local services is a recurring cost?

The Property Tax will be an annual charge, from what I can gather. On 4Fm yesterday they were saying that an average 3-bed smi will have an annual property tax charge of aprox. €650 +. I don't know how they were equating this but my self-build home, going by those details, is going cost a tad more.

alastair

later12 wrote: »

But you're having great difficulty with understanding that I'm not denying there is a benefit which falls on everybody, regardless of location. However, that is heavily skewed in favour of those living in population clusters whether in rural Irish villages or large cities. I don't think it would be particularly difficult, or indeed controversial, to have the tax take account of people who would apply for and be refused access to these main services.

All you're talking about are septic tanks and the difference in subsidy for individual/group schemes over mains water - which will become moot in short order. Beyond that I'm not seeing what 'main services' you're actually losing out on.

Heroditas

alastair wrote: »

When you state:

It sure sounds like you aren't happy with the volumes of info already available to you via the local authority website.

But maybe I have it all wrong.

So that's it. You make an assumption based on something I state and then twist it to suit your argument.
Grand so. I can do that too.

Now, any issues with anything else I said in those first two posts in this thread?