Urban/rural Ireland...where are we going?

murphaph · 05-03-2012 1:21pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

The irony of course is that this thread was started by a person who doesn't even live in this country. Which seems to be a common trend i have noticed on boards lately - Irish people abroad (or even some non Irish) wanting to dictate how Ireland is run

I lived in Ireland long enough (>30 years) and continue to pay taxes, so I'll make whatever comments I like about it. The Irish in Ireland haven't exactky done a great job of running the country and perhaps they should listen to people with different perspectives.

As to 26 local authorities raising taxes blah blah. I did qualify my statement with a rather large proviso: total overhaul of local government in Ireland. This would have to include amalgamating many councils into regional authorities.

We could also look at the Swedish model, where all incomce taxes are given back to the local authority from central government (with some authorities subsidising others, but I imagine to a much smaller degree than in Ireland). Again, not before local government is completely streamlined and reformed.

Dublin does get a raw deal IMO. But I believe all the cities do. I think regional assemblies with a city or large town at their core would focus spending somewhere that would bring results, instead of dividing the money up so many times that it ends up doing nothing much at all.

Liam Byrne · 05-03-2012 1:35pm

murphman wrote:

Irish in Ireland haven't exactky done a great job of running the country

Many of the Irish in Ireland aren't involved in running the country, so comments that relate to how Ahern, Drumm, Fitzpatrick et al did what they did best are insulting.

It'd be like blaming all of the Americans for the invasion of Iraq by Bush and his round table of like-minded warmongers and oil cronies.

murphaph · 05-03-2012 1:51pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Many of the Irish in Ireland aren't involved in running the country, so comments that relate to how Ahern, Drumm, Fitzpatrick et al did what they did best are insulting. It'd be like blaming all of the Americans for the invasion of Iraq by Bush and his round table of like-minded warmongers and oil cronies.

Perhaps, but as a whole the electorate elects the government and must take responsibility for their collective choice. I blame the US electorate for electing Bush, I don't blame individual voters who may have voted for someone else.

Anyway, it was only in response to being told (more or less) to mind my own business because I'm not physically present on the hallowed soil (despite paying income tax there and being an Irish citizen), so who should feel more insulted?

Other states allow their citizens to vote when abroad, but of course Ireland is different here as well, I suppose.

Liam Byrne · 05-03-2012 2:04pm

murphaph wrote: »

Perhaps, but as a whole the electorate elects the government and must take responsibility for their collective choice. I blame the US electorate for electing Bush, I don't blame individual voters who may have voted for someone else.

Anyway, it was only in response to being told (more or less) to mind my own business because I'm not physically present on the hallowed soil (despite paying income tax there and being an Irish citizen), so who should feel more insulted? Other states allow their citizens to vote when abroad, but of course Ireland is different here as well, I suppose.

I think the fact that you want to impose your lifestyle preferences on others (while not even engaging in the parallel discussions re other choices like children & child benefit) combined with arbitrarily including rural areas that you were happy with (while dismissing other urban areas and less rural areas than you supported) had probably teed you up for a "butt out" long before the location revelation, and any reason would have done.

mikom · 05-03-2012 2:09pm

Stench of jealousy from the highrises on this thread is sickening

markpb · 05-03-2012 2:15pm

jmayo wrote: »

They can have both federal taxes and a different state tax on goods, but that is easy when the state is already the geographical size of a small European country with the population to match.

You failed to mention that individual cities in America can also levy their own sales and income taxes. "Cities" can be as small as a few thousand people and they manage it just fine. You don't have to be in a situation where a state is the size of a small European country to divide up taxes.

Also you asked us to imagine a scenario where VAT rates in Galway were 5% lower than Dublin but you never told us what you think would happen in that scenario. Personally I think people might travel from Dublin to Galway for some expensive items (cars, maybe?) but the vast majority of things (electricity, gas, grocerties, petrol) will continue to be bought where people live.

Personally I think local/country income tax variances is the most workable, I'd much rather see that than local sales taxes but you could argue that people living in Kildare and working in Dublin would pay more of their taxes to Dublin than Kildare.

Tipp Man · 05-03-2012 3:05pm

murphaph wrote: »

I lived in Ireland long enough (>30 years) and continue to pay taxes, so I'll make whatever comments I like about it. The Irish in Ireland haven't exactky done a great job of running the country and perhaps they should listen to people with different perspectives.

As to 26 local authorities raising taxes blah blah. I did qualify my statement with a rather large proviso: total overhaul of local government in Ireland. This would have to include amalgamating many councils into regional authorities.

We could also look at the Swedish model, where all incomce taxes are given back to the local authority from central government (with some authorities subsidising others, but I imagine to a much smaller degree than in Ireland). Again, not before local government is completely streamlined and reformed.

Dublin does get a raw deal IMO. But I believe all the cities do. I think regional assemblies with a city or large town at their core would focus spending somewhere that would bring results, instead of dividing the money up so many times that it ends up doing nothing much at all.

i lived, worked, and payed taxes in the UK for a while as well, and still pay tax in UK - I'm not going to go telling them how they should or shouldn't run their country. Thats up to the people who are effected by it i.e. those who have to live with the consequences of those decisions

Regarding your 26 local authorities blah blah blah - basically you don't give a damn about the rest of the country as long as the Dubs get to keep their taxes - basically that is what you are saying. This country is currently overrun with red tape and administration - and nobody is worse for this than government - so setting up more government administration is just ridiculous

You refer to the Swedish model - what you have described is the same as the Irish model - yet you are unsure to what degree some of the Swedish local authorities are subsidising others?? Seems to be exactly the same as the Irish model - but maybe the Swedes are getting value for money from their local authorities.

Dublin does not get a raw deal at all - you seem to forget that government policies have helped to create the city of Dublin at the expense of other areas of the country. The IFSC for example is a case of enticing companies to locate in Dublin, we could have had the IFSC in Cork for example and it could have been equally as successful. This is just 1 example.

Tipp Man · 05-03-2012 3:09pm

murphaph wrote: »

Perhaps, but as a whole the electorate elects the government and must take responsibility for their collective choice. I blame the US electorate for electing Bush, I don't blame individual voters who may have voted for someone else.

Anyway, it was only in response to being told (more or less) to mind my own business because I'm not physically present on the hallowed soil (despite paying income tax there and being an Irish citizen), so who should feel more insulted? Other states allow their citizens to vote when abroad, but of course Ireland is different here as well, I suppose.

If we don't allow people in Ireland not to vote then I'm glad we don't. Its easy vote for a policy when you are in Germany, UK or USA knowing that it has absolutely zero impact on your life. Much harder to make that choice when it directly impacts on your life

just because other countries allow it doesn't mean it better

BluntGuy · 05-03-2012 3:33pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

The USA has a land area more than 120 times that of Ireland so it makes sense that states set their own tax levels as well as cental taxes. They have dozens of cities bigger than Dublin. Their model suits them - that doesn't mean it suits Ireland

As markpb mentioned, small towns have the power to effect taxation. Surely it would be a boon for people who feel disengaged with the democratic process to have some real say in how their money is spent in their local area, rather than waiting for the euro to come from the central slush fund?

What Ireland needs is better value for money from its county councils, less waste and more productivity and more accountability.

More efficient local authorities and more autonomy aren't mutually exclusive propositions.

We do not need every county council setting its own taxes. Of course this has nothing to do with a want for more local autonomy - lets call a spade a spade - it boils down to the fact that Dubs think they are somehow bank rolling this country and a feeling deprieved of things because "money has to go down the country".

What exactly is wrong with the idea that cities should be allowed to spend a greater share than present of the tax revenue their citizens generate, to provide the decent urban services that they require?

The irony of course is that this thread was started by a person who doesn't even live in this country. Which seems to be a common trend i have noticed on boards lately - Irish people abroad (or even some non Irish) wanting to dictate how Ireland is run

I don't see why the fact that someone may be abroad or horror of horrors not be "Irish" devalues their opinion. Why this got thumbed up is beyond me.

i lived, worked, and payed taxes in the UK for a while as well, and still pay tax in UK - I'm not going to go telling them how they should or shouldn't run their country. Thats up to the people who are effected by it i.e. those who have to live with the consequences of those decisions

Because you're not living in the country, you have no right to have an opinion on how the country should be run? It sounds like you're trying to justify your indignation more than anything else, because this doesn't make one bit of sense. Indeed often an external view can be superior when it comes to taking a cold, hard logical look at the situation rather than emotional one.

Dublin does not get a raw deal at all - you seem to forget that government policies have helped to create the city of Dublin at the expense of other areas of the country. The IFSC for example is a case of enticing companies to locate in Dublin, we could have had the IFSC in Cork for example and it could have been equally as successful. This is just 1 example.

Government policies have often been actively doing the opposite. Only recently, the IDA were trying to get Paypal to set up in Limerick, and they elected to choose Dundalk, because of its proximity to Belfast and Dublin. On Cork, specifically relating to the IFSC, there is a proposal to construct an "Atlantic Quarter" in the Docklands that might provide competition to the IFSC. Whether or not that will ever get built though is another thing. Don't forget the IFSC wasn't built by the state, it was only allowed for by the state. I don't see how the government could've said "we like you're proposal but you have to build it in Cork".

Tipp Man · 05-03-2012 4:12pm

BluntGuy wrote: »

As markpb mentioned, small towns have the power to effect taxation. Surely it would be a boon for people who feel disengaged with the democratic process to have some real say in how their money is spent in their local area, rather than waiting for the euro to come from the central slush fund?

Why exactly would that be a boon? Sounds like a receipe for even more corruption

BluntGuy wrote: »

More efficient local authorities and more autonomy aren't mutually exclusive propositions.

No but i would rather see how efficient and accountable councils operate in the current system before giving them tax creating powers. Right around the country councils have increased rates for the last few years and when back up and justification has been sought on this increases they have been met with silence - and you want to give these cowboys more power??

BluntGuy wrote: »

What exactly is wrong with the idea that cities should be allowed to spend a greater share than present of the tax revenue their citizens generate, to provide the decent urban services that they require?

Will these same cities be willing to fully compensate the rural areas for the resources that they take from the rural areas?? Such as water, energy etc. Because currently they are not.

BluntGuy wrote: »

I don't see why the fact that someone may be abroad or horror of horrors not be "Irish" devalues their opinion. Why this got thumbed up is beyond me.

Because you're not living in the country, you have no right to have an opinion on how the country should be run? It sounds like you're trying to justify your indignation more than anything else, because this doesn't make one bit of sense. Indeed often an external view can be superior when it comes to taking a cold, hard logical look at the situation rather than emotional one.

As said previously it is easy to come up with hairbrained ideas when you are NOT the person who has to foot the bill or deal with the consequences of theses ideas. If the OP had the idea that everybody should be paying 95% tax to clear our budget deficit would you be so willing to entertain the idea??

BluntGuy wrote: »

Government policies have often been actively doing the opposite. Only recently, the IDA were trying to get Paypal to set up in Limerick, and they elected to choose Dundalk, because of its proximity to Belfast and Dublin. On Cork, specifically relating to the IFSC, there is a proposal to construct an "Atlantic Quarter" in the Docklands that might provide competition to the IFSC. Whether or not that will ever get built though is another thing. Don't forget the IFSC wasn't built by the state, it was only allowed for by the state. I don't see how the government could've said "we like you're proposal but you have to build it in Cork".

As far as i was aware Paypal was given a choice of locations and chose Drogheda over Limerick, that is their choice

RE the IFSC. The physical buildings might not have been built by government but the policy to only charge 10% corp tax to companies in the IFSC was a clear policy choice to get companies to locate in Dublin, more specifically in the IFSC. That is obviously going to attract people to Dublin, people in general who are on very good salaries. This has the double effect of increasing personal and corp tax in the Dublin region. So is a clear example of government policy directly increasing the tax take of the Dublin area. (note i think the IFSC was a good idea and a success and have no problem with it)

markpb · 05-03-2012 4:22pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

Why exactly would that be a boon? Sounds like a receipe for even more corruption

Care to explain that?

Will these same cities be willing to fully compensate the rural areas for the resources that they take from the rural areas?? Such as water, energy etc. Because currently they are not.

Production of renewable energy (which currently only happens in rural areas) is *subsided* by the government. Food prices are given a floor by CAP, this is a subsidy paid for by EU taxpayers.

the policy to only charge 10% corp tax to companies in the IFSC was a clear policy choice to get companies to locate in Dublin

You mean like EU BMW grants for the border region, a move which was organised specifically by the government to ensure they continued getting grants when Dublin and the rest of the country were not. What about Udaras na Gaeltachta grants for setting up in Gaeltacht regions? Or the continued funding of Galway and Kerry airports and PSO subsidies for flights to Donegal and Kerry.

Places outside Dublin get plenty of support for the government, people just don't see it or don't want to see it.

Tipp Man · 05-03-2012 4:30pm

markpb wrote: »

Care to explain that?

Production of renewable energy (which currently only happens in rural areas) is *subsided* by the government. Food prices are given a floor by CAP, this is a subsidy paid for by EU taxpayers.

You mean like EU BMW grants for the border region, a move which was organised specifically by the government to ensure they continued getting grants when Dublin and the rest of the country were not. What about Udaras na Gaeltachta grants for setting up in Gaeltacht regions? Or the continued funding of Galway and Kerry airports and PSO subsidies for flights to Donegal and Kerry.

Places outside Dublin get plenty of support for the government, people just don't see it or don't want to see it.

First off I never said that places outside Dublin didn't get support - I am merely highlighting that Dublin also gets plenty of support which Dublin people just don't see or don't want to see

Secondly the link between CAP and food prices floors never really existed and any link that was there was most certainly broken at the start of the last decade when de-coupling came in to place. Irish food companies are now competing on the world market - not on the Dublin or Ireland market

No doubt renewable energy is being subsidised - but you only have to look at your next car fill of fuel to see that it won't be very long before these energies start to become independantly viable.

On your first question - we are trying to move this country away from parish pump politics. Giving more power to local authorities and councils INCREASES parish pump politics not decreases it

OssianSmyth · 05-03-2012 5:28pm

32 boroughs in London, each with its own council and mayor and power to set, collect and spend residential council tax. Boroughs are similar in population size to Dublin local authorities.

20 Arrondissements in central Paris, each with its own council and mayor

Taxes in the US are levied at federal, state, county and city/town level. Property tax is typically set, collected and spent by the county/city

One view is that Irish LA's should centralise and share services such as HR. Another view is that each LA should run its own shop with local money and compete with each other to provide the best services at the lowest tax cost. This is the idea in the UK - I don't know if it works.

murphaph · 05-03-2012 5:58pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

On your first question - we are trying to move this country away from parish pump politics. Giving more power to local authorities and councils INCREASES parish pump politics not decreases it

You're getting confused here. Parish pump politics is when extremely local issues cloud peoples' decision making process with respect to issues if national importance. It's precisely because our councils are so weak that people go running off to their TD for x, y and z, rather than to their council, who should be the ones providing local services and so on.

Although, as I've said at least 3 times (though you don't appear to be listenning), we need to reform loacl government completely, before giving them any more responsibility than they have, because local government is badly broken in Ireland. Though I'm sure whatever I'm saying is safe to ignore as I don't live there at the moment.

jmayo · 05-03-2012 6:48pm

markpb wrote: »

You failed to mention that individual cities in America can also levy their own sales and income taxes. "Cities" can be as small as a few thousand people and they manage it just fine. You don't have to be in a situation where a state is the size of a small European country to divide up taxes.

I would love to see how this affects companies, who are already fed up with the amount of bureaucracy we have in this country, when they have to set up different VAT rates for products in their shops throughout the country.
If anything we need less differences in the country and somepeople want to add another layer.
We are a small country with 4.5 million of a populaiton but somepeople want us to behave as if we have hundreds of millions and a land mass the size of the USA.

BTW what is the smallest city/town that sets it's own unique sales tax ?
I would just like to know that.

markpb wrote: »

Also you asked us to imagine a scenario where VAT rates in Galway were 5% lower than Dublin but you never told us what you think would happen in that scenario. Personally I think people might travel from Dublin to Galway for some expensive items (cars, maybe?) but the vast majority of things (electricity, gas, grocerties, petrol) will continue to be bought where people live.

Doh. Yes I will travel 130 miles to buy my milk or other groceriers.
But watch the electrical shops shut in one area and the same ones boom in another if the VAT rate differed by 5%.
Same with cars, etc.

Imagine how some pubs and offlicenses would do.
For argument sake lets say Laois had 20% Vat and Carlow had 25% VAT.
Now Carlow town is actually on the border. Lets see how that works.
This is a cack eyed idea for a country our size. :rolleyes:

markpb wrote: »

Personally I think local/country income tax variances is the most workable, I'd much rather see that than local sales taxes but you could argue that people living in Kildare and working in Dublin would pay more of their taxes to Dublin than Kildare.

Would it be based on where someone lives or where they are employed ?

Again a managerial nightmare.
Remember how much of a problem all the variations in pay scales in the dept of health HSE helped scupper the PPARS project.

Tipp Man wrote: »

Why exactly would that be a boon? Sounds like a receipe for even more corruption

No but i would rather see how efficient and accountable councils operate in the current system before giving them tax creating powers. Right around the country councils have increased rates for the last few years and when back up and justification has been sought on this increases they have been met with silence - and you want to give these cowboys more power??

Ah but shure they will be overhauled and everything will be hunky dory. :rolleyes:

Tipp Man wrote: »

Will these same cities be willing to fully compensate the rural areas for the resources that they take from the rural areas?? Such as water, energy etc. Because currently they are not.

Water is a big one.
If people in Dublin county had to rely on their own county for water they wouldn't be doing too well.
If they decided to screw Wicklow and Kildare, all those counties would have to do is turn off or divert the flow.

OssianSmyth wrote: »

32 boroughs in London, each with its own council and mayor and power to set, collect and spend residential council tax. Boroughs are similar in population size to Dublin local authorities.

Ehhh they don't set income tax or VAT do they ?
No they set a residential tax or rates.

OssianSmyth wrote: »

20 Arrondissements in central Paris, each with its own council and mayor

Every fecking village in France has a major.
And I mean a collection of 10 or 12 houses with not even a shop or pub.

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Taxes in the US are levied at federal, state, county and city/town level. Property tax is typically set, collected and spent by the county/city

Is it primarily property tax that varies at local level ?
What is the smallest entity in the US with it's own sales tax is what I would like to know ?

murphaph wrote: »

You're getting confused here. Parish pump politics is when extremely local issues cloud peoples' decision making process with respect to issues if national importance. It's precisely because our councils are so weak that people go running off to their TD for x, y and z, rather than to their council, who should be the ones providing local services and so on.

Although, as I've said at least 3 times (though you don't appear to be listenning), we need to reform loacl government completely, before giving them any more responsibility than they have, because local government is badly broken in Ireland. Though I'm sure whatever I'm saying is safe to ignore as I don't live there at the moment.

I think there are too many mickey mouse councils ala the town councils.
As for local county councils the number of members should be chopped.

I do agree that local property/residential taxes/charges like the old rates should be set locally, and then used locally.
But I do not want local councils having the ability to set their own sales tax i.e. VAT or even worse income tax levels.

goose2005 · 06-03-2012 11:17pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

This thread has got to be the greatest load of rubbish i have ever heard

Look Ireland is simply too small to go dividing up into 26 tax and expenditure centres.

Most people suggested maybe 8 or 9 regions.

The USA has a land area more than 120 times that of Ireland so it makes sense that states set their own tax levels as well as cental taxes. They have dozens of cities bigger than Dublin. Their model suits them - that doesn't mean it suits Ireland

But virtually every advanced country has directly elected mayors and other officials, and local authorities with genuine power. The only reason Ireland doesn't is because we inherited a British system and couldn't be arsed changing anything.

Similarly London has a population about 8 times that of Dublin - making comparisions between the 2 is futile

No-one did. Look at Oslo, with a population similar to Dublin - 6 metro lines, 6 tram lines and 8 commuter rail lines. Dublin has 2 tram lines and 1 commuter line (DART).

We do not need every county council setting its own taxes. Of course this has nothing to do with a want for more local autonomy - lets call a spade a spade - it boils down to the fact that Dubs think they are somehow bank rolling this country and a feeling deprieved of things because "money has to go down the country".

Taxes and economic activity in Dublin do subsidise the rest of the country. This is a fact.

fricatus · 07-03-2012 12:47am

goose2005 wrote: »

Taxes and economic activity in Dublin do subsidise the rest of the country. This is a fact.

That's a pretty big statement. Can you provide a source?

Bear in mind that the bulk of civil service and semi-state employment, which is well paid, is in Dublin and is paid for by all citizens. Don't forget the four universities in the Dublin area (compared to three in the rest of the country), or the subsidy provided by the 10% corporation tax rate in the IFSC. Also remember to include the cost of the LUAS and the Port Tunnel in your calculations...

charlemont · 07-03-2012 1:16am

Tipp Man wrote: »

This thread has got to be the greatest load of rubbish i have ever heard

Look Ireland is simply too small to go dividing up into 26 tax and expenditure centres.

The USA has a land area more than 120 times that of Ireland so it makes sense that states set their own tax levels as well as cental taxes. They have dozens of cities bigger than Dublin. Their model suits them - that doesn't mean it suits Ireland

Similarly London has a population about 8 times that of Dublin - making comparisions between the 2 is futile

What Ireland needs is better value for money from its county councils, less waste and more productivity and more accountability.

We do not need every county council setting its own taxes. Of course this has nothing to do with a want for more local autonomy - lets call a spade a spade - it boils down to the fact that Dubs think they are somehow bank rolling this country and a feeling deprieved of things because "money has to go down the country".

The irony of course is that this thread was started by a person who doesn't even live in this country. Which seems to be a common trend i have noticed on boards lately - Irish people abroad (or even some non Irish) wanting to dictate how Ireland is run

So what's you take on the merging of the two Tipperary councils then ??
And what do you think should happen to the 6 town councils and 1 borough council in Tipperary ?

Interesting how both Cahir and Roscrea have no councils.

I personally think the two councils should remain separate but have the Town councils scrapped and merge them into their respective county councils, And the Borough council should remain but stay under the wing of South Tipp council.

murphaph · 07-03-2012 1:09pm

fricatus wrote: »

That's a pretty big statement. Can you provide a source?

Bear in mind that the bulk of civil service and semi-state employment, which is well paid, is in Dublin and is paid for by all citizens. Don't forget the four universities in the Dublin area (compared to three in the rest of the country), or the subsidy provided by the 10% corporation tax rate in the IFSC. Also remember to include the cost of the LUAS and the Port Tunnel in your calculations...

...not forgetting that Dublin City Council gets no rates from these state owned buildings which take up large swathes of the most expensive (and therefore rates lucrative) land in the country.

Many buildings aren't even utilised fullly as a result of decentralisation.

chris2008x · 29-04-2012 9:46am

charlemont wrote: »

So what's you take on the merging of the two Tipperary councils then ??
And what do you think should happen to the 6 town councils and 1 borough council in Tipperary ?

Interesting how both Cahir and Roscrea have no councils.

I personally think the two councils should remain separate but have the Town councils scrapped and merge them into their respective county councils, And the Borough council should remain but stay under the wing of South Tipp council.

Getting rid of urban councils is a bad idea. The town and borough councils are important for every town in Ireland for money to be allocated to each area and spent locally in the town. Lets use Tipperary as an example. How would the soon to be Tipperary council manage to absorb six town councils and one borough council exactly? Or control planning in these areas, promote these areas. The town councils need more powers if anything and some other powers taken away.

I don't like quangos nobody does but set up one and take the social housing responsibilities off the councils this would save millions. Not all money spent on housing is provided by the Department of the Environment. Some of this money is raised through parking charges in the case of Templemore TC who only introduced parking charges in 2008.

Allow town councils to set their own rates. With more powers like that these councils can be very productive. Getting rid of these town/borough councils would only make this worst by disadvantaging towns like Tipperary town, Cashel, Templemore etc cause all of the money will be sucked in by the larger towns Thurles, Nenagh and Clonmel .

OssianSmyth · 30-04-2012 12:09pm

From the 2011 census report:

Urban population hits all time high

The number of people in urban areas (i.e. towns
with a population of 1,500 or more) surpassed 2.8
million for the first time.

Overall, 2,846,889 people lived in urban areas in
Ireland in 2011. This represents an increase of
272,576 or 10.6 per cent on 2006. Since 1996,
Ireland has shown a rise in its urban population of
738,898.

Rural Ireland experienced a lower rate of growth
between 2006 and 2011 growing by 75,828
persons or 4.6 per cent, from 1,665,535 in 2006
to 1,741,363 in 2011.

As can be seen in the chart below, 62.0 per cent
of the population lived in urban areas in April
2011 compared with 46.4 per cent 50 years ago

Aidan1 · 02-05-2012 12:45pm

Bear in mind that the bulk of civil service and semi-state employment, which is well paid, is in Dublin and is paid for by all citizens. Don't forget the four universities in the Dublin area (compared to three in the rest of the country), or the subsidy provided by the 10% corporation tax rate in the IFSC. Also remember to include the cost of the LUAS and the Port Tunnel in your calculations...

The majority of Civil Servants and Semi States are actually outside of Dublin. More senior and higher paid jobs may well be concentrated in the capital (hint hint) city, but thats a different story. Also, there may well be notional tax expenditure around the IFSC, but the areas is of huge net benefit to the State.

In terms of the capital investment vs general regional budgetary balance question - it's very interesting, and Dr Morgenroth of the ESRI has written a series of useful articles on same. This is probably the most immediately useful;

http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20080131131705/WP195.pdf

In short though, traditionally only Dublin and Cork actually generated a surplus, every other city/county was a net recipient. More recently, as the article shows for 2004 figures, the Dublin, Midwest (read Limerick) and SouthWest (read Cork) actually generated surpluses. In simple terms, the cities generate a surplus that is used to fund everyone else - the systems is progressive, taking wealth from some areas and 'donating' it to others.

On the capital front, he also notes that "no clear pattern of ‘excess’ per capita capital expenditure can be detected in the data.", but does point out that the 2 main urban regions do tend to get a greater share of capital expenditure, mainly due to the fact that there is a far greater return on investment to the State from investments in those areas. Moreover, he comes down in favour of the argument that it makes sense to support the development of those parts of the country that are actually running a surplus, and paying for everyone else, which makes sense to me. He makes passing reference to the difficulties in 'forcing' convergence - in fact there is a very large literature on the subject, and the simple answer is that it is very difficult to do, and probably only even possible in very particular sets of circumstances.

Victor · 03-05-2012 1:27am

fricatus wrote: »

That's a pretty big statement. Can you provide a source?

Bear in mind that the bulk of civil service and semi-state employment, which is well paid, is in Dublin and is paid for by all citizens.

And your source?

Don't forget the four universities in the Dublin area (compared to three in the rest of the country),

Or three in Dublin and four in the rest of the country. Universities are a high level activity, you can't have one in every town. Just like most places will have shops, medium sized towns might have a cinema, but you need to go to large population centres for department stores, speciality retail, some speciality leisure, large employers, etc.

or the subsidy provided by the 10% corporation tax rate in the IFSC.

Isn't this long gone? Of course the 10% corporation tax rate applied to all manufacturing industry. The current 12.5% rate applies to pretty much everything above I think €500,000.

Also remember to include the cost of the LUAS and the Port Tunnel in your calculations...

How about the €8bn spent on the motorway programme? Do we really need two motorways across Tipperary?

nuac · 03-05-2012 10:19am

Victor wrote: »

And your source?

"Or three in Dublin and four in the rest of the country. Universities are a high level activity, you can't have one in every town. Just like most places will have shops, medium sized towns might have a cinema, but you need to go to large population centres for department stores, speciality retail, some speciality leisure, large employers, etc."

Victor surely Dublin has four universities - UCD, TCD, DCU, Maynooth?

I realise Maynooth is not in the city, but is just a short journey from centre Dublin - to those of us living 100+ miles from Dublin it does seem to be a Dublin institution

JustinDee · 03-05-2012 10:50am

nuac wrote: »

Victor surely Dublin has four universities - UCD, TCD, DCU, Maynooth?

I realise Maynooth is not in the city, but is just a short journey from centre Dublin - to those of us living 100+ miles from Dublin it does seem to be a Dublin institution

Technically incorrect but fair enough thought given that it takes around 20-25 minutes by car to get from Maynooth to the Quays or 40-45 minutes from Maynooth to Connolly Station,.

liammur · 03-05-2012 11:17am

Aidan1 wrote: »

The majority of Civil Servants and Semi States are actually outside of Dublin. More senior and higher paid jobs may well be concentrated in the capital (hint hint) city, but thats a different story. Also, there may well be notional tax expenditure around the IFSC, but the areas is of huge net benefit to the State.

In terms of the capital investment vs general regional budgetary balance question - it's very interesting, and Dr Morgenroth of the ESRI has written a series of useful articles on same. This is probably the most immediately useful;

http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20080131131705/WP195.pdf

In short though, traditionally only Dublin and Cork actually generated a surplus, every other city/county was a net recipient. More recently, as the article shows for 2004 figures, the Dublin, Midwest (read Limerick) and SouthWest (read Cork) actually generated surpluses. In simple terms, the cities generate a surplus that is used to fund everyone else - the systems is progressive, taking wealth from some areas and 'donating' it to others.

On the capital front, he also notes that "no clear pattern of ‘excess’ per capita capital expenditure can be detected in the data.", but does point out that the 2 main urban regions do tend to get a greater share of capital expenditure, mainly due to the fact that there is a far greater return on investment to the State from investments in those areas. Moreover, he comes down in favour of the argument that it makes sense to support the development of those parts of the country that are actually running a surplus, and paying for everyone else, which makes sense to me. He makes passing reference to the difficulties in 'forcing' convergence - in fact there is a very large literature on the subject, and the simple answer is that it is very difficult to do, and probably only even possible in very particular sets of circumstances.

Just watch Galway, they are getting in top class jobs almost every week. They will be contributing more and more taxes. But guess what.....it's at the expense of other regions, a bit like the IFSC (big renewal scheme) in Dublin. A company setting up in Galway gets better tax incentives than if one were to set up in Limerick 65 miles down the road because Galway qualifies under the BMW scheme.
So Limerick is getting no IDA jobs, and Galway is getting loads, does someone seriously think it would be fair that Galway have a higher local tax spend than Limerick when it's not a level playing field to start with?

Tipp Man · 03-05-2012 11:39am

Victor wrote: »

How about the €8bn spent on the motorway programme? Do we really need two motorways across Tipperary?

Thats a very lazy statment to make - the motorways obviously go to Cork and Limerick, our second and third largest cities, and the fastest and shortest route to get to these cities from Dublin is through Tipperary. It's a big long county so it is impossible to avoid

Aidan1 · 03-05-2012 2:16pm

But guess what.....it's at the expense of other regions, a bit like the IFSC (big renewal scheme) in Dublin. A company setting up in Galway gets better tax incentives than if one were to set up in Limerick 65 miles down the road because Galway qualifies under the BMW scheme.

What BMW scheme? If there is some form of regionalised Corporation Tax regime, it'd be news to me (which isn't beyond the realms of possibility). The primary benefit of being designated as an Objective 1 Region has (nominally) to do with Structural Funds, but given that these are co-funded, and thus require the Member State (us) to pony up some of the cash, and we don't have much, it's kind of irrelevant. Also, Galway has some profound advantages that Limerick doesn't, some of them easier to measure than others. The most obvious of these is a form of second mover advantage - Limerick got in early with a lot of FDI in assembly manufacturing (like Dell), which Galway largely missed out on (Digital apart, and they are long gone). Galway went after the high end jobs, the R&D, medical devices and software - partly because they were too late to hoover up the manufacturing work, and party because their electricity and water systems couldn't cope. Their disadvantage has now turned into an advantage, in that they have a critical mass of tech companies, which Limerick is struggling to get to. The IDA can only locate companies where they want to go, and companies want to go where they can get employees that they can work with, or where they can encourage employees from elsewhere to move to.

Which brings us to the other, and more controversial advantage is that Galway is generally regarded as a nicer city to live in (safer, better social life, better cultural scene). Objectively I've no idea if it's true, but people still think it so it still counts.

liammur · 03-05-2012 2:23pm

Aidan1 wrote: »

What BMW scheme? If there is some form of regionalised Corporation Tax regime, it'd be news to me (which isn't beyond the realms of possibility). The primary benefit of being designated as an Objective 1 Region has (nominally) to do with Structural Funds, but given that these are co-funded, and thus require the Member State (us) to pony up some of the cash, and we don't have much, it's kind of irrelevant. Also, Galway has some profound advantages that Limerick doesn't, some of them easier to measure than others. The most obvious of these is a form of second mover advantage - Limerick got in early with a lot of FDI in assembly manufacturing (like Dell), which Galway largely missed out on (Digital apart, and they are long gone). Galway went after the high end jobs, the R&D, medical devices and software - partly because they were too late to hoover up the manufacturing work, and party because their electricity and water systems couldn't cope. Their disadvantage has now turned into an advantage, in that they have a critical mass of tech companies, which Limerick is struggling to get to. The IDA can only locate companies where they want to go, and companies want to go where they can get employees that they can work with, or where they can encourage employees from elsewhere to move to.

Which brings us to the other, and more controversial advantage is that Galway is generally regarded as a nicer city to live in (safer, better social life, better cultural scene). Objectively I've no idea if it's true, but people still think it so it still counts.

http://eustructuralfunds.gov.ie/files/Documents/BMW%20Revised%20Operational%20Programme.pdf

I could instantly transform Tralee, 'no corporation tax for 5 years', That sentence makes this thread redundant. Tralee citizens would then of course argue that taxes raised in Tralee, should stay in Tralee

Aidan1 · 03-05-2012 2:58pm

Maybe it's just my browser/copy of acrobat, but I can't find any reference to Corporation Tax in that document?

Two other things.

1. Galway does/has benefited from something else - a historic commitment from the IDA that 50% of all Greenfield jobs would be in the BMW region. They've never hit that figure, but as the only city in the region, Galway obviously still benefits.

2. This

it's at the expense of other regions

- even if it were true that there were profound tax advantages to locating in the BMW vs the S&E regions (and there may be), it is still unlikely to be the case that other regions 'lose' - in fact it is quite likely that Ireland as a whole benefits (on the basis that the investment is either made in the BMW region, or in Switzerland/Denmark/France). Just because the jobs don't land in someones own back yard doesn't mean that they don't benefit. Ireland = a State. Not a bunch of counties/constituencies squabbling over scraps.

Victor · 03-05-2012 3:06pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

Thats a very lazy statment to make - the motorways obviously go to Cork and Limerick, our second and third largest cities, and the fastest and shortest route to get to these cities from Dublin is through Tipperary. It's a big long county so it is impossible to avoid

Both need not have been built. Instead of building the M8 as they built it, they could instead have had Cork-Dublin traffic go via Limerick or Kilkenny and instead build those routes as motorway, for no additional cost.

liammur wrote: »

http://eustructuralfunds.gov.ie/files/Documents/BMW%20Revised%20Operational%20Programme.pdf

I could instantly transform Tralee, 'no corporation tax for 5 years', That sentence makes this thread redundant. Tralee citizens would then of course argue that taxes raised in Tralee, should stay in Tralee

But if there was no tax, how could they raise any money?

liammur · 03-05-2012 3:30pm

Victor wrote: »

Both need not have been built. Instead of building the M8 as they built it, they could instead have had Cork-Dublin traffic go via Limerick or Kilkenny and instead build those routes as motorway, for no additional cost.

But if there was no tax, how could they raise any money?

Good question.

What would happen is, companies would queue up to get in to Tralee, workforce would rocket, there would be a huge spend in the local economy, this is where you would get the tax from. The downside is, other regions would suffer.

liammur · 03-05-2012 3:32pm

Aidan1 wrote: »

Maybe it's just my browser/copy of acrobat, but I can't find any reference to Corporation Tax in that document?

Two other things.

1. Galway does/has benefited from something else - a historic commitment from the IDA that 50% of all Greenfield jobs would be in the BMW region. They've never hit that figure, but as the only city in the region, Galway obviously still benefits.

2. This - even if it were true that there were profound tax advantages to locating in the BMW vs the S&E regions (and there may be), it is still unlikely to be the case that other regions 'lose' - in fact it is quite likely that Ireland as a whole benefits (on the basis that the investment is either made in the BMW region, or in Switzerland/Denmark/France). Just because the jobs don't land in someones own back yard doesn't mean that they don't benefit. Ireland = a State. Not a bunch of counties/constituencies squabbling over scraps.

This is completely seperate to low corporation tax.

Aidan1 · 03-05-2012 3:39pm

Oh right, I thought you were suggesting that the NDP document contained a regionalised corporation tax system.

I take it then that there is no such system in place, and that Galway competes on a level playing field in terms of taxation at least?

What would happen is, companies would queue up to get in to Tralee

Why Tralee and not (say) Killarney, or Cork, or Dublin? Why voluntarily surrender tax take just to lob some jobs into a town, where it costs the taxpayer so much more to maintain services and infrastructure, when they could be put into a city where (a) there is still a tax take, and (b) the population growth could be managed much more efficiently for the tax payer?

Victor · 03-05-2012 3:42pm

Aidan1 wrote: »

I take it then that there is no such system in place, and that Galway competes on a level playing field in terms of taxation at least?

Taxation, it seems so. However, the structural funds thing and I think IDA / FÁS grants are allowed be more generous in the BMW region.

liammur · 03-05-2012 3:47pm

Aidan1 wrote: »

Oh right, I thought you were suggesting that the NDP document contained a regionalised corporation tax system.

I take it then that there is no such system in place, and that Galway competes on a level playing field in terms of taxation at least?

Why Tralee and not (say) Killarney, or Cork, or Dublin? Why voluntarily surrender tax take just to lob some jobs into a town, where it costs the taxpayer so much more to maintain services and infrastructure, when they could be put into a city where (a) there is still a tax take, and (b) the population growth could be managed much more efficiently for the tax payer?

In terms of taxation yes.
I agree with your point, but why the IFSC for the urban renewal scheme?

I believe it's not the area that's important, it's the scheme behind it. You can make any region attractive to employers. Just like Ireland is attractive for US multinationals in a European context.

Tipp Man · 03-05-2012 6:02pm

Victor wrote: »

Both need not have been built. Instead of building the M8 as they built it, they could instead have had Cork-Dublin traffic go via Limerick or Kilkenny and instead build those routes as motorway, for no additional cost.

What??

The motorways still needed to be built - and we still needed 1 from Limerick to Dublin and 1 from Cork to Dublin

Without going via the North Pole you need to go through Tipp to get from Limerick to Dublin - or should that motoroway have gone via Galway?

Re Cork to Dublin it would be what 50 kms or more LONGER to go via KK and Waterford or via Limerick and definately not as good a route. so you want all traffic from Cork to Dublin (by far the busiest route) to go more than 50km out of their way just so that Tipp doesn't have 2 motorways through it - brilliant

Victor · 04-05-2012 1:38am

Tipp Man wrote: »

Re Cork to Dublin it would be what 50 kms or more LONGER to go via KK and Waterford

Where did I mention going via Kilkenny and Waterford? As it is, Dublin-Kilkenny-Clonmel-Cork is slightly longer than Dublin-Portlaoise-Cork. building a motorway Kilkenny-Cahir would have chopped off a few km.

However, it would have meant motorway between Dublin and Clonmel and Cork and Clonmel (and on to Waterford) for substantially less money.

JustinDee · 04-05-2012 9:14am

goose2005 wrote: »

Most people suggested maybe 8 or 9 regions.

But virtually every advanced country has directly elected mayors and other officials, and local authorities with genuine power. The only reason Ireland doesn't is because we inherited a British system and couldn't be arsed changing anything.

No-one did. Look at Oslo, with a population similar to Dublin - 6 metro lines, 6 tram lines and 8 commuter rail lines. Dublin has 2 tram lines and 1 commuter line (DART).

Taxes and economic activity in Dublin do subsidise the rest of the country. This is a fact.

The level of taxation in Ireland is not even close to that of Norway. Why do people keep bringing up the flipping place as an example every time? In Ireland if petrol goes up by a whopping 4c, there are hundreds of queues at main service stations. A household charge of just €100 is being used as a sh*tty stick to argue about austerity measures deemed necessary. Water charges? Ffs.
Paddy wants all he can get for as little as possible. That is why he borrowed to the hilt during the boomtime despite warnings at the beginning of the Millenium.

You want Norwegian-style infrastructure? Then prepare to fork out for it in absolutely everything you pay for, watch your imports over a small limit become subject to import duties on top of the taxation already in place. Watch the protected cartel of supermarkets, for example, limit range available and float prices. Have you any idea how much petrol is in Norway, an oil-producing country?

Norway is as it is because Norwegians pay for it. Why do they pay for it? Because they can.

Sånn er livet.

long range shooter · 11-05-2012 1:11am

JustinDee wrote: »

goose2005 wrote: »

Most people suggested maybe 8 or 9 regions.

But virtually every advanced country has directly elected mayors and other officials, and local authorities with genuine power. The only reason Ireland doesn't is because we inherited a British system and couldn't be arsed changing anything.

No-one did. Look at Oslo, with a population similar to Dublin - 6 metro lines, 6 tram lines and 8 commuter rail lines. Dublin has 2 tram lines and 1 commuter line (DART).

Taxes and economic activity in Dublin do subsidise the rest of the country. This is a fact.

The level of taxation in Ireland is not even close to that of Norway. Why do people keep bringing up the flipping place as an example every time? In Ireland if petrol goes up by a whopping 4c, there are hundreds of queues at main service stations. A household charge of just €100 is being used as a sh*tty stick to argue about austerity measures deemed necessary. Water charges? Ffs.
Paddy wants all he can get for as little as possible. That is why he borrowed to the hilt during the boomtime despite warnings at the beginning of the Millenium.

You want Norwegian-style infrastructure? Then prepare to fork out for it in absolutely everything you pay for, watch your imports over a small limit become subject to import duties on top of the taxation already in place. Watch the protected cartel of supermarkets, for example, limit range available and float prices. Have you any idea how much petrol is in Norway, an oil-producing country?

Norway is as it is because Norwegians pay for it. Why do they pay for it? Because they can.

Sånn er livet.

ingen i Irland forstår det Justin jeg har gitt opp

chris2008x · 11-05-2012 11:41am

You also have to remember Victor the cost of acquiring land in these cities if you go the Dublin-Galway-Limerick way it would make it even more unviable. The cost of building these motorways, we will not see a return for decades. I am sure the planners in the NRA looked at all options and found this to be the most cost effective.

fasttalkerchat · 12-05-2012 6:01am

Should urban dwellers be levied to cover the cost of street lights, public refuse collection, street cleaners, public toilets etc? I think that when you factor in all the advantages of living in a town you can allow them their unapproved roads!

murphaph · 13-05-2012 6:13pm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Should urban dwellers be levied to cover the cost of street lights, public refuse collection, street cleaners, public toilets etc? I think that when you factor in all the advantages of living in a town you can allow them their unapproved roads!

Yes. Urban dwellers can pay for their 10m average frontage including footpaths and lighting and non-essential (so not farmers or anyone who actually must live on the land) rural dwellers can pay for their 1km+ average frontage.

There's no getting away from the fact that urban living make it easier and more cost effective to provide services and infrastructure. This is nothing new, the Romans and their predecessors knew it too!

goose2005 · 13-05-2012 7:24pm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Should urban dwellers be levied to cover the cost of street lights, public refuse collection, street cleaners, public toilets etc? I think that when you factor in all the advantages of living in a town you can allow them their unapproved roads!

But they get better services because they live at high densities, so the cost per person is not very much. Since the first cities were built this has always been true.

Hotblack Desiato · 13-05-2012 7:36pm

In Dublin at least, all refuse collection is privatised and paid for by the householder, and almost all public toilets were shut down years ago!

Mahogany · 20-11-2014 9:03pm

I've always thought the main reasons to the dysfunction of Irish society was the small population but it's not.

It's really the urban rate - 64% is really low for a developed country. I think we've one of the lowest urban rates in Europe? If we even had just 10% more people in our urban areas, that's 450,000 people moving into our towns and cities, what a positive effect that would have.

BlutendeRabe · 20-11-2014 9:31pm

Mahogany wrote: »

I've always thought the main reasons to the dysfunction of Irish society was the small population but it's not.

It's really the urban rate - 64% is really low for a developed country. I think we've one of the lowest urban rates in Europe? If we even had just 10% more people in our urban areas, that's 450,000 people moving into our towns and cities, what a positive effect that would have.

If we had better urban planning it probably would have a positive effect.

Dublin was cited by the European Environmental Agency as a worst case scenario for urban planning ten years ago. As someone whose lived there for the past 6 years (only recently moved back west) its easy to see why.

Black Swan · 21-11-2014 12:22am

MOD: Zombie thread with last post before the 2 above dated 13-05-2012. Locked.

Members are welcome to start a new thread with updated content if they wish.

Urban/rural Ireland...where are we going?

Comments