Dublin City Council disgrace again

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

The homeless don't pay the LPT, neither do houses adapted for the disabled, or sheltered housing provided by charities, that makes it a fair tax in my opinion.

Fair enough, but owning a home isn't necessarily a sign of wealth. There was a time the average working family owned a home. It was common place. Just because it's fantasy for many doesn't make those who own them any more wealthy.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Fair enough, but owning a home isn't necessarily a sign of wealth. There was a time the average working family owned a home. It was common place. Just because it's fantasy for many doesn't make those who own them any more wealthy.

By definition, property is wealth.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

By definition, property is wealth.

I'd say James Reilly might've disagreed with you, that time he was named in Stubbs Gazette for example - hell, he probably still would disagree with you.

Idbatterim

for all those against the LPT, which is a pittance here compared to other countries, you think the workers should pick up the tab for that too do you?

Muahahaha

Idbatterim wrote: »

for all those against the LPT, which is a pittance here compared to other countries, you think the workers should pick up the tab for that too do you?

If only people got as exercised about our high rates of USC and PAYE as they do about the LPT we might get some progress.

Idbatterim

Muahahaha wrote: »

If only people got as exercised about our high rates of USC and PAYE as they do about the LPT we might get some progress.

thats the difference, they are too busy working, the do nothing brigade do nothing about moan about mostly having to pay for anything, even with the free money that they get that pays for it.

Id suggest in their free time, they start some research and see what they'd be getting from our European peers welfare system and what property taxes etc they would all be paying...

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I'd say James Reilly might've disagreed with you, that time he was named in Stubbs Gazette for example - hell, he probably still would disagree with you.

I don't get that archaic reference - or what James Reilly has to do with me - but you must follow them closely enough to know.

blanch152

Idbatterim wrote: »

for all those against the LPT, which is a pittance here compared to other countries, you think the workers should pick up the tab for that too do you?

Of course they don't believe the workers should pick up the tab - they are socialists after all.

From Paul Murphy to Matt Barrett, tax should be paid by someone else - the rich. Then when you put a tax on the rich like the LPT, you realise that what they mean by the rich are unicorns, rainbows and Denis O'Brien. Everyone shouldn't have to pay.

BDI

They need a hatchet man to get in and hit every public service of the wasters.
Council workers, hospital porters, useless social welfare staff, they need to start firing some useless people.

I’d say nearly every small team within the departments of the public service has two or three staff that work and one that does absolutely nothing apart from mistakes that the other people in the team have to waste time fixing.

If you think there isn’t you are probably the one making the mistakes, breezing about with biscuits and coffees and calling in sick a few weeks at a time if somebody upsets you.

If new legislation is needed somebody should write it up.

I’d go as far to say I’d vote for a party who said they’d make it a criminal offense to steal a living in a public service department.

If you can go to jail for stealing social welfare you should be able to go to jail for stealing from the public service budget.

My taxes go up every year, new taxes are made and these layabouts sit at their desks watching other people work complaining about haddington road or some other agreement.

The cycle lane outside ard school ris on the Malahide road has a bush growing into it months now, probably over a year and there is more chance of me getting off my bike and cutting it down than there is somebody from the government doing it.

blanch152

BDI wrote: »

They need a hatchet man to get in and hit every public service of the wasters.
Council workers, hospital porters, useless social welfare staff, they need to start firing some useless people.

I’d say nearly every small team within the departments of the public service has two or three staff that work and one that does absolutely nothing apart from mistakes that the other people in the team have to waste time fixing.

If you think there isn’t you are probably the one making the mistakes, breezing about with biscuits and coffees and calling in sick a few weeks at a time if somebody upsets you.

If new legislation is needed somebody should write it up.

I’d go as far to say I’d vote for a party who said they’d make it a criminal offense to steal a living in a public service department.

If you can go to jail for stealing social welfare you should be able to go to jail for stealing from the public service budget.

My taxes go up every year, new taxes are made and these layabouts sit at their desks watching other people work complaining about haddington road or some other agreement.

The cycle lane outside ard school ris on the Malahide has a bush growing into it months now, probably over a year and there is more chance of me getting off my bike and cutting it down than there is somebody from the government doing it.

Who is going to move your trolley when they get rid of all the hospital porters?

Idbatterim

blanch152 wrote: »

Who is going to move your trolley when they get rid of all the hospital porters?

ideally a robot porter!

BDI

blanch152 wrote: »

Who is going to move your trolley when they get rid of all the hospital porters?

They can keep the ones that don’t walk as slow as possible.
I personally know somebody who was told they need to take more time moving a patient from one area to another and if they can’t walk slower they were told to go the long way because if he starts walking faster they all have to.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

By definition, property is wealth.

Nope. Necessity. Having a place to live isn't being wealthy. Lucky maybe.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Of course they don't believe the workers should pick up the tab - they are socialists after all.

From Paul Murphy to Matt Barrett, tax should be paid by someone else - the rich. Then when you put a tax on the rich like the LPT, you realise that what they mean by the rich are unicorns, rainbows and Denis O'Brien. Everyone shouldn't have to pay.

You think Denis O'Brien isn't real or very rare? You know Noonan's sweet deal for Denis is still under investigation? Very real cost to the tax payer on that one.
People with a second home should be taxed to the gills. It's not my fault people with more money have more money. If I had two houses I'd expect, during a perpetual housing crisis, to be taxed heavily.
Taxing your sole means of shelter, well I'll let this chap say it:

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Nope. Necessity. Having a place to live isn't being wealthy. Lucky maybe.

Wrong again.

Having a place to live is a necessity.

Owning a place to live is wealth.

There is a difference, which is why homeowners are wealthy and those that rent or are homeless are not wealthy.

Idbatterim

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You think Denis O'Brien isn't real or very rare? You know Noonan's sweet deal for Denis is still under investigation?
People with a second home should be taxed to the gills. It's not my fault people with more money have more money. If I had two houses I'd expect, during a perpetual housing crisis, to be taxed heavily.
Taxing your sole means of shelter, well I'll let this chap say it:

right, great quote from kenny there, is there any other country in europe that doesnt charge a property tax?

What is kenny opinion on thieving 50% over the pittance of 35,000 that hits low income workers, is that" unjust and unfair too"?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You think Denis O'Brien isn't real or very rare? You know Noonan's sweet deal for Denis is still under investigation? Very real cost to the tax payer on that one.
People with a second home should be taxed to the gills. It's not my fault people with more money have more money. If I had two houses I'd expect, during a perpetual housing crisis, to be taxed heavily.
Taxing your sole means of shelter, well I'll let this chap say it:

So that's when you voted FG, ok I get it now. I didn't vote for them then, by the way.

As for Denis O'Brien, he is real of course, but the fantasy of him being responsible for all wrongs or owning 90% of the country isn't real, hence he fits in with the unicorns and rainbows of the left.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Wrong again.

Having a place to live is a necessity.

Owning a place to live is wealth.

There is a difference, which is why homeowners are wealthy and those that rent or are homeless are not wealthy.

Ah you're buying into the move to make everybody renters. That's great for Noonan and pals, but not something we should be accepting as our lot or be content with.
No, owning a home should be within reach of working tax payers, just because the system is rigged against it might make it a luxury, but it's still a necessity to have a roof and for every renter you've a private property owner making a profit.
Owning a house is expensive but you cannot sell it and use the money for Fabergé eggs.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

So that's when you voted FG, ok I get it now. I didn't vote for them then, by the way.

As for Denis O'Brien, he is real of course, but the fantasy of him being responsible for all wrongs or owning 90% of the country isn't real, hence he fits in with the unicorns and rainbows of the left.

Nope after their pals FF last crash. I foolishly thought we were in such a state Kenny and FG would put the country first. More fool me I know.
Who said such a thing? He might own 90% of FG.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Ah you're buying into the move to make everybody renters. That's great for Noonan and pals, but not something we should be accepting as our lot or be content with.
No, owning a home should be within reach of working tax payers, just because the system is rigged against it might make it a luxury, but it's still a necessity to have a roof and for every renter you've a private property owner making a profit.
Owning a house is expensive but you cannot sell it and use the money for Fabergé eggs.

Who is Noonan? Are you still fighting the battles of the last decade?

Sleeper12

blanch152 wrote:

"Dublin city councillors have again voted to reduce the annual local property tax by 15% - the maximum amount allowable."

They will continue to do this until the government make the property tax more fair. Its not right that a 3 bed mid terrace ex corpo house can pay more than a six bed detached house on an acre of land in Cavan.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Wrong again.

Having a place to live is a necessity.

Owning a place to live is wealth.

There is a difference, which is why homeowners are wealthy and those that rent or are homeless are not wealthy.

Well I’m skint.

odyssey06

blanch152 wrote: »

Wrong again.

Having a place to live is a necessity.

Owning a place to live is wealth.

There is a difference, which is why homeowners are wealthy and those that rent or are homeless are not wealthy.

So a renter on 100k a year is automatically not wealthy?
And someone on 50k paying a mortgage on a house or apartment is automatically wealthy, regardless of the value of the property and level of debt?

Doesnt add up.

I think you are confusing assets with wealth and it is the total net worth which determines if someone is wealthy not the distribution of assets and income.

Hotblack Desiato

Geuze wrote: »

20% of all LPT from every council is put into a fund, to be distributed to weaker councils.

This is known as fiscal equalisation, and happens in most countries.

That would be fair, were it not for the fact that Dubliners are taxed far higher.

As we're paying a large premium, we should at least get the full benefit of it.

A fair system would be to tax property on site area. That half-acre McMansion in the middle of nowhere isn't looking so attractive then.

is_that_so wrote: »

As others have said they can retain 80% but DCC doesn't depend on it as much as in other LAs as they have huge commercial rates underpinning their budgets

A huge amount of property in the DCC area is government owned and doesn't pay rates.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Who is Noonan? Are you still fighting the battles of the last decade?

Says the man still living in the Troubles.
Housing cisis still going since then. Siteserv court case is on going blanch. As regards details of his inappropriate behaviour we may never know but likely when ever that may be folk while cite 'historic' and support his party anyway.

odyssey06

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That would be fair, were it not for the fact that Dubliners are taxed far higher.
As we're paying a large premium, we should at least get the full benefit of it.
A fair system would be to tax property on site area. That half-acre McMansion in the middle of nowhere isn't looking so .

I wonder what is a more accurate indicator of cost of local services used... site value or notional property value.

I suspect the former would lead to more efficient use.

Possibly it should be down to each LPT to set the basis for assessment.

James Brown

odyssey06 wrote: »

I wonder what is a more accurate indicator of cost of local services used... site value or notional property value.

I suspect the former would lead to more efficient use.

Possibly it should be down to each LPT to set the basis for assessment.

It being based on property value your 'wealth' can vary depending on if your neighbourhood is popular or fashionable or a sh*thole regardless of rooms. Sounds fair...

odyssey06

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It being based on property value your 'wealth' can vary depending on if your neighbourhood is popular or fashionable or a sh*thole regardless of rooms. Sounds fair...

It is supposed to pay for local services.

I think that might work within Dublin or other cities. But not countrywide.
So I dont see the fairness in a 1 bed in Dublin paying more than a 3 bed in Louth. Or paying 20% to Louth.

James Brown

odyssey06 wrote: »

It is supposed to pay for local services.

I think that might work within Dublin or other cities. But not countrywide.
So I dont see the fairness in a 1 bed in Dublin paying more than a 3 bed in Louth. Or paying 20% to Louth.

I don't think it's fair myself. You might have been lucky and bought a house only to have your neighbourhood go up in value. Your house might be worth more than you paid for it but you are not wealthier IMO.

is_that_so

Sleeper12 wrote: »

They will continue to do this until the government make the property tax more fair. Its not right that a 3 bed mid terrace ex corpo house can pay more than a six bed detached house on an acre of land in Cavan.

It's a fairly empty fairness claim. They don't actually need the money and can afford to do this, an option not realistically available to other councils beyond the Dublin region. 2017 & 2018 rates below for comparison.

https://www.revenue.ie/en/property/local-property-tax/valuing-your-property/has-your-local-authority-rate-changed.aspx