http://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/dubliners-get-up-to-50-times-less-funding-than-rural-dwellers-1.1730130
Time to write to Labour Ministers.........this is shocking!
Time to write to Labour Ministers.........this is shocking!
Dubliners get up to 50 times less funding than rural dwellers
- Thread starter monagt
- Start date
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,422
An analysis by Dublin City Council finds that Dublin City Council isn't getting enough money. 
An analysis by Dublin City Council finds that Dublin City Council isn't getting enough money.
It also found that Cork and other urban centres weren't getting their fair share as well so not sure why you are accusing the report of having Dublin bias. And it shows that within Dublin, Fingal is a lot worse off than Dublin City so not sure Dublin City Council can be accused of bias either.
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,422
It's as clear as day that Dublin City Council, who prepared the report, are utterly biased - although I can't blame them for wanting as big a slice of the pie as they can get.
What part of the report is biased? Even the Government acknowledge the issue although they say is temporary for this year.
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,422
The report is inherently biased in that Dublin City Council, who prepared the report, stand to gain directly by the implementation of its recommendations. This is clearly the case regardless of whether or not one agrees with those recommendations.
What recommendations? There weren't any.
That's not the problem. 20% of the LPT was supposed to be witheld by Government and shared out between councils as needs be. 80% was supposed to be spent in the area that it was received which was what the whole idea of a LPT was based on. The Government aren't doing that this year despite promising but they are claiming that they will do it from 2015 onwards. I remain to be convinced.
Yea, but did anyone really think this was going to happen?
This is just another tax to pay wages for council employees, just as bin charges were brought in to pay for Benchmarking pay increases. It's all just tax. Water charges will be the same.
With marginal income tax rates at 55% and people reaching the highest tax band at a lower relative income rate than any other country in the OECD bar Israel there's no more room to tax "the rich", i.e. people a little over the average industrial wage. Therefore it's indirect taxes such as water charges, bin charges, credit card fees, etc. that are the way to go. The double taxation of pensions (income tax on the way in and the way out), the pension levy's, cuts in health insurance tax allowances etc. are all in place so there's nowhere else to go for more money.
The logical conclusion inferred is that everyone should move to Dublin and look at the money we'd save (and/or let the culchies fend for themselves).
Having lived in Dublin I'm not convinced it is a model of everything good in urban living - although it probably has improved since I was there (pre Luas days) when the traffic was pure murder. I hear this morning Dublin is expected to double in size - OMG as ye might say up there, that wont be pretty.
Spatial strategy anyone?, balanced development anyone?
Also, the principle of tax is redistribution of wealth. Should the denizens of Foxrock, who I dare say are massive net contributors to the state coffers insist that their money be kept within their "parish". No?, but applying that logic to the Dublin Area Vs the rest of the country somehow seems to make perfect sense..........
Most of the jobs in Ireland are in the greater Dublin area, what are ye complaining about.
Finally, isnt it fairly obvious that Dublin will have more of everything, more crime, more justice system costs, more welfare, more tax paid. There are only so many roads (for example) in Dublin to spend council funds on, the fact that the spending per head is lower does not mean less service is delivered or that Dubliners are being disadvantaged.
Having lived in Dublin I'm not convinced it is a model of everything good in urban living - although it probably has improved since I was there (pre Luas days) when the traffic was pure murder. I hear this morning Dublin is expected to double in size - OMG as ye might say up there, that wont be pretty.
Spatial strategy anyone?, balanced development anyone?
Also, the principle of tax is redistribution of wealth. Should the denizens of Foxrock, who I dare say are massive net contributors to the state coffers insist that their money be kept within their "parish". No?, but applying that logic to the Dublin Area Vs the rest of the country somehow seems to make perfect sense..........
Most of the jobs in Ireland are in the greater Dublin area, what are ye complaining about.
Finally, isnt it fairly obvious that Dublin will have more of everything, more crime, more justice system costs, more welfare, more tax paid. There are only so many roads (for example) in Dublin to spend council funds on, the fact that the spending per head is lower does not mean less service is delivered or that Dubliners are being disadvantaged.
Again, you are missing the point and I don't see how you can reach the logical conclusion that you reached. It has nothing to do with per capita spending. Of course somewhere like Leitrim will always have a higher per capita spending than Dublin. That's logical and nobody is giving out about it.
The issue is that this tax was called the LOCAL prtoperty tax because 80% of the money raised was supposed to be spent in the area that it was collected in and 20% was supposed to go into the central pot.
There is already distribution of tax wealth from urban centres to rural areas and nobody is complaining about it. The issue is with this specific tax that was sold on the idea on that it would fund LOCAL amenities.
This isn't a Dublin v Country Argument. Dublin is spilt into four council areas and the same argument applies.
Fair enough, I accept your point.
What I would say is that that point isn't being emphasised in the media, for example on the Last Word it was set up very much as a Dublin Vs the country debate, it was all presented as "Why is Dublin subsidising the country?" It probably makes better radio, but it does explain why culchies are on the defensive when that is the tone of debate being presented to them.
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,422
This isn't a Dublin v Country issue, but it suits Dublin City Council to pretend that it is such in order to maximise their own coffers.
If Dublin City Council cared a whit about the tax burden on their own citizens, they wouldn't be charging €2.90 per hour for parking throughout the city, even in out-of-the-way areas.
If Dublin City Council cared a whit about the tax burden on their own citizens, they wouldn't be charging €2.90 per hour for parking throughout the city, even in out-of-the-way areas.
They need to increase revenue because of reductions in receipts from rates as they cannot cut their direct costs (they cannot cut wages and they cannot make employees redundant).
I am completely lost now. Where was Dublin city Council giving out about the tax burden. The issue was where the tax was going, not the tax itself.
And unless parking charges go towards paying for the local swimming pool in Leitrim, I really don't get the point.
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,422
The point is that DCC act in their own interests, not in the interests of their citizens. So their "Dubliners are getting ripped off" moans are self-serving and hollow. (Remember this is the same outfit who recently agreed target-based bonuses with their clamping contractors.)
Of course they are self serving but they are also self evident; the statistics they have highlighted are facts and are not contested by anyone. In what way do you think they are hollow?
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,422
They ignore the obvious economies of scale which cities enjoy.