Discussion: Why is it called "Local" Property Tax?
- Thread starter Sumatra
- Start date
mandelbrot
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,330
I presumed it was because local authorities can vary the amount of the tax?
seantheman
Registered User
- Messages
- 932
I had a feeling that it was because they said money raised was to
help fund "local" services, which seems to be backed up here.
10. Local Authority Funding
• Revenue from the LPT will support the provision of local services. • Internationally, local services are administered by local authorities and financed by local service charges. • In Ireland, local authorities are responsible for, among other services, public parks; libraries; open spaces and leisure amenities; planning and development; fire and emergency services; maintenance and cleaning of streets; and street lighting. These facilities benefit everyone.
http://budget.gov.ie/budgets/2013/Documents/Annex B - Local Property Tax.pdf
http://budget.gov.ie/budgets/2013/Documents/Annex B - Local Property Tax.pdf
mandelbrot
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,330
Why are you making such a big deal out of everything to do with this tax?!
It's Local property tax because it's purpose is to provide a sustainable and stable source of funding for local authorities to provide local services, and there will be local control over the rates, to a certain extent.
Would you be less unhappy about it if it was just called property tax, without the local??
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,215
But Michael Noonan and the Revenue have told us its not going to be tax deductible as its "not levied by a local authority".
Well you can have your say on that next year:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/elections_and_referenda/local_elections/
Dammit you could even run!
[broken link removed]
Just had a quick look at the figures for 2012 &2013 of a Co. Co. which I came across accidentally. This Co. Co employs very few outdoor maintenance staff and yet its budget for the years 2012/13 for wages/salaries and pensions is 46% of the total budget. This is in a period that we are supposed to have had severe cutbacks in staff and pay. We will be giving these people the authority to increase or decrease the LPT and you will notice that Paddy Power's have not opened a book on what way that will go. Surely there is major room for cut backs in administration in those figures.
It's essential to have a precise description and definition of the LPT, so that we can make a reasonable assumption (or not) as to whether the LPT is the same as "rates" which as defined in the relevant Act are tax deductible .
Revenue said that whilst NPPR may possibly be defined as a rate it was not levied by local authorities and therefore did not qualify as an allowable expence as per the Act.
However, the LPT can be changed (within parameters) by the local authority and it would seem reasonable to assume that the local authorities are therefore levying the charge-in so much as they will decide the exact amount.
P.S. Did Noonan actually state that the LPT this would not be allowable? I thought he said he'd introduce a bill to make it so.
Revenue said that whilst NPPR may possibly be defined as a rate it was not levied by local authorities and therefore did not qualify as an allowable expence as per the Act.
However, the LPT can be changed (within parameters) by the local authority and it would seem reasonable to assume that the local authorities are therefore levying the charge-in so much as they will decide the exact amount.
P.S. Did Noonan actually state that the LPT this would not be allowable? I thought he said he'd introduce a bill to make it so.
It might if you vote for candidates who support such a change?
mandelbrot
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,330
Whose expense rate are we talking about?
Is it not the civil service rate - i.e. the same rate that applies to many tens of thousands of people in both public and private sector? (If it's not then it should be.)
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,215
There is no issue, as far as I can see, with civil service mileage rates. The rates were cut in 2009, and have been frozen since, at a time when fuel costs have spiralled.
There are major issues with waste, duplication, inefficiency and cronyism within local authorities.
There are major issues with waste, duplication, inefficiency and cronyism within local authorities.
I don't think the local authorities have this power yet - not for a couple of years I think.
Fair enough if the money will be spent in MY local area but there is nothing in the legislation to guarantee this. So expensive Dublin LPT can be spent in not-so-local-to-the-payers rural areas. I know the government has said that 80% 'should' be spent in the area it is collected but there is nothing to guarantee this. Kind of makes a mockery of the word local if it is not spent 100% for the local area it is collected in.
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,215
This isn't merely an urban v rural issue, but also involves the subsidy of local authorities in poorer urban areas by property tax receipts collected in richer urban areas, eg subsidies to poorer areas of Fingal & central Dublin by the relatively affluent South Dublin county council area. Note that the disparities of incomes within urban areas are generally much greater than on by urban v rural comparisons.
I presume on the basis of your statement above that you'd object to such redistributive cross-subsidisation?
I don't think I could even say 'redistributive cross-subsidisation' never mind objecting to it! The thread is about why it is called a 'local' property tax - and if it is collected centrally and not spent locally, it is a fair question isn't it?
Although to your point, I really don't think there will be much cross-subsidisation across local authorities within Dublin - each of the local areas is large enough and varied enough to do their own redistributive cross-subsidisation within their own areas without having to tap South County Dublin.
So in an effort to further my redistributive cross-subsidisation education, I had a look at the affluence index data that was reported on a couple of months ago (basically used the 2006/2011 censuses - looked at income proxies such as education, skills, house ownership, lone parent households, unemployment levels - in very small cells of maybe 50-100 houses across the country). http://www.irishtimes.com/news/rich-land-poor-land-1.954614
Of the 34 'counties'/local authorities, by far the most affluent local authority area was Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown. Second place went to Dublin Fingal; Dublin City was 6th and South County Dublin was 11th. SCD was just about at the tipping point - pretty much equal to the whole-country average. So of the Dublin counties, 3 are well above average and the 4th (SCD) is about average - so it is unlikely there will be any redistributive cross-subsidisation to or within Dublin.
The lowest index LA areas were Limerick City, Donegal, Wexford and Longford.
There are undoubtedly some flaws in the methodology in using proxies instead of actual income but it serves as a broad guide to which local authorities might need cross-subsidies - and which may have their 'local' money sent far away.
Of the 34 'counties'/local authorities, by far the most affluent local authority area was Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown. Second place went to Dublin Fingal; Dublin City was 6th and South County Dublin was 11th. SCD was just about at the tipping point - pretty much equal to the whole-country average. So of the Dublin counties, 3 are well above average and the 4th (SCD) is about average - so it is unlikely there will be any redistributive cross-subsidisation to or within Dublin.
The lowest index LA areas were Limerick City, Donegal, Wexford and Longford.
There are undoubtedly some flaws in the methodology in using proxies instead of actual income but it serves as a broad guide to which local authorities might need cross-subsidies - and which may have their 'local' money sent far away.