Forget the Household Charge-In Comes a Site Charge

Solidchrome

I'm sick to the stomach with all these new taxes and charges being introduced and here comes another here

Goodbye Ireland- I'm leaving for good.

'Site valuation tax could be set up quickly'

An economic workshop in Dublin has been told that the Government could set up a site valuation tax quickly, with an average charge of €625 per household.
Economist Ronan Lyons said the tax would raise about €3 billion a year in revenue. He said that 80% of the information required to set up a tax system, based on an annual charge of 2% of the land value, already exists and could be used to levy a new tax.
In his work he has divided the country into 4,500 districts, five different house types and ten different valuation bands.
Under this system those living in Dublin would pay the most, while those living in rural areas would pay the least, because of the relative values of land in different parts of the country.
However, as the system is based on the size of the site, rural dwellers with big gardens could find themselves paying more than city dwellers living on small sites.
A site valuation tax is based on taxing the square metres of a site, not the value of the property on it. So the key thing is to determine the value of each site.
Using a database of 1.3 million sales and rental adverts posted between 2006 and 2011, Mr Lyons says it is possible to determine the relative value of land in different parts of the country, an in different parts of cities.
"The value of a property is the value of the building and the value of the land it is on. If we know the value of a property type, (eg apartment, bungalow, etc) we can calculate the land value", said Mr Lyons.
The economist also claims that the site valuation tax would be fairer and raise more money than the €100 charge the government is levying on all residential property. It would replace commercial rates and stamp duty.
By taxing property at 2% of the site value annually, the tax could raise €3 billion annually, of which €1 billion would be new revenue.
"Three quarters of Irish peoples wealth is tied up in property, and yet it it untaxed. Those who argue for a wealth tax should support a site tax as it is effectively a tax on wealth", argued Mr Lyons.
He said the system could be amended to make allowances for elderly people with no incomes, or first time buyers who bought property at the height of the boom, and who are under most financial pressure.

the drifter

lol 2% of site value...the can stick that where the sun dont shine.

Sykk

"Three quarters of Irish peoples wealth is tied up in property, and yet it it untaxed. Those who argue for a wealth tax should support a site tax as it is effectively a tax on wealth", argued Mr Lyons.

He missed something along the way there.

People who are screwed with mortgages that they can barely afford will be getting additional tax.

sensibleken

so people will start building small but tall buildings instead, thus devaluing the price of land.

oh no wait they brought in a bylaw in dublin saying you cant build over 4 stories didnt that. sack of......

woodoo

Alot of County Councils wouldn't approve building houses on sites smaller than 1/2 acre in rural ireland. Most houses in these areas will be on sites of between 1/2 acre and 1 or 2 acres. So someone in rural Mayo could end up paying more than someone on Shrewsbury road, D4 :eek:

frostfright

Wait until the not wearing puffy pants tax comes in:mad:

ilovesleep

Will this site valuation tax be on top of the property tax also due to come in?

sensibleken

Point of order. This is not coming in, this was just said by some guy at an economics thing

Godge

Think a site value charge is a great idea.

It is a tax on wealth. Anyone in favour of helping the poor or other left-wing policies should be delighted with this idea. It will be interesting to see whether there are any genuine socialist parties in Ireland who will support this.

swampgas

Sykk wrote: »

He missed something along the way there.

People who are screwed with mortgages that they can barely afford will be getting additional tax.

People who are screwed with mortgages that they can barely afford are screwed anyway - and this has no bearing on whether a site value tax is a good idea or not.

Personally I think it could make sense to pay more in the way of fixed taxes like a property or site value tax, but pay less income tax.

robd

sensibleken wrote: »

Point of order. This is not coming in, this was just said by some guy at an economics thing

Exactly it was said by Ronan Lyons who normally associates himself with Daft.ie at a conference on economics.

robd

swampgas wrote: »

People who are screwed with mortgages that they can barely afford are screwed anyway - and this has no bearing on whether a site value tax is a good idea or not.

Personally I think it could make sense to pay more in the way of fixed taxes like a property or site value tax, but pay less income tax.

Exactly. Also people who are screwed by a mortgage are in the minority anyway. The property bubble caused a great transfer of wealth from under 30's to over 50's.

In reality site or land value tax is considered an efficient way of encouraging good use of land. In major cities such as Dublin it discourages detached houses on 2 acres of land. It is adjusted for rural locations as land is not of such value there.

Also tax policy is about the future not the past. Good taxation policy around land would discourage what went on during the boom years.

RichardAnd

I propose a tax on all new tax ideas. As Mr Lyons is so keen to assist the government in their efforts of raising revenue, I'm sure he won't object to his salary being garnished.

swampgas

RichardAnd wrote: »

I propose a tax on all new tax ideas. As Mr Lyons is so keen to assist the government in their efforts of raising revenue, I'm sure he won't object to his salary being garnished.

So you'll be paying a tax for the idea of taxing new tax ideas then ...

opti0nal

Solidchrome wrote: »

By taxing property at 2% of the site value annually, the tax could raise €3 billion annually, of which €1 billion would be new revenue.

He makes it sound like the money is created by magic and not that people will have to pay it. Since they cant't liquidate the 'wealth' in their house, the money would have to come out of the economy, for example by cancelling a Sky sub or reducing other discretionary spending, if there is any left to cut.

Other problem with this is that it will discourage people from improving their properties or neighbourhoods as this would increase the valuation and hence the tax burden.

More road tolling would be a better idea as this would encourage people to drive less and would help keep carbon emissions down. A win-win.

Godge

opti0nal wrote: »

He makes it sound like the money is created by magic and not that people will have to pay it. Since they cant't liquidate the 'wealth' in their house, the money would have to come out of the economy, for example by cancelling a Sky sub or reducing other discretionary spending, if there is any left to cut.

Other problem with this is that it will discourage people from improving their properties or neighbourhoods as this would increase the valuation and hence the tax burden.

More road tolling would be a better idea as this would encourage people to drive less and would help keep carbon emissions down. A win-win.

You do not understand taxation.

An increase in income tax takes money directly out of the economy as it comes straight out of what people are earning. It also discourages them from working harder.
An increase in VAT takes money directly out of the economy.

However, a site value tax operates slightly differently. yes, some of it works as you say. But there are a lot of non-residents with property in Ireland - a site value tax takes money off them and brings it in to the economy. There are also people with large savings sitting in big houses. A site value tax dilutes their savings, good for tax revenue or makes them go out and earn some money, good for tax revenue too.

So it is a much better idea than raising income tax.

hognef

Surely a tax on the value of the full property makes more sense than a site value tax, assuming it's meant to be a wealth tax?

Also, if it is indeed meant as a wealth tax, in my opinion, it would only make sense to tax a person's overall wealth. In other words the sum of their assets, whether it's made up of fixed property, flashy cars, stocks or cash -- less the sum of their liabilities, e.g. a mortgage or a car loan.

Otherwise, it sends out a message saying it's better to keep your wealth in a bank account than to purchase property.

On this basis, people who own their house outright would pay more than those who have just bought, or who bought a few years ago and are now in negative equity.

If, on the other hand, the tax is meant as a local services tax, it might be reasonable to calculate it based on the site value, although I'm not really convinced of that either.

woodoo

Just make it based on the value of a particular site. Not sq meters or anything like that. Just how much is the site worth.

jased10s

another half assed knee jerked propesition by the a gouverment.
at least s banana republic has sunshine......

[Jackass]

As has already been clarified, and I might as well throw it out there as it doesn't seem to have landed.... This is an "idea" from an Economist from a "Think Tank", and is column fodder for a newspaper, and has absolutely no connection to any legislation or new taxes being introduced in this country.

It would be like me printing in this post

NEW WOBBLY WILLY TAX

A contributor to a forum has proposed a new tax on the length of a mans willy, and how "straight it is".

He commented "Most men have willies, and not all of them are completely straight. We would be looking to raise an additional 7 billion in revenue by charging 250 euro for every centimetre for every degree the willy is off a right angle."

I'm not a member of Government (believe it or not), and just because you read about the wibbly wobbly willy tax in this thread, does not mean that this is being fast tracked through the dail, or that anybody endorses my idea.

The same applies for the "site valuation tax" ....

that should be clear enough...

GSF

RichardAnd wrote: »

I propose a tax on all new tax ideas. As Mr Lyons is so keen to assist the government in their efforts of raising revenue, I'm sure he won't object to his salary being garnished.

You must be a FF'er then so. Just keep doing the same thing over & over and expecting it to end differently.

This penchant for taking one line out of some ones proposal for sensationalist gallery playing is getting very tedious in Ireland.

Lets just go back to buying & selling houses to each other & taxing each other on the "profits" shall we?

opti0nal

Godge wrote: »

There are also people with large savings sitting in big houses. A site value tax dilutes their savings, good for tax revenue or makes them go out and earn some money, good for tax revenue too.

So this tax is not directed at people in average house who are barely making ends meet?

opti0nal

hognef wrote: »

If, on the other hand, the tax is meant as a local services tax, it might be reasonable to calculate it based on the site value, although I'm not really convinced of that either.

Or just charge people for what services they use based on the cost of providing them?

If I buy a cup of coffee, the price is the same regardless of the size of my house.

NakedNNettles

Solidchrome wrote: »

I'm sick to the stomach with all these new taxes and charges being introduced and here comes another here

Goodbye Ireland- I'm leaving for good.
.

Where are you going? Or are you just bluffing?

Bullseye1

We should have a tax on the number and size of windows....oh wait we had that one before

Pete_Cavan

A Site Value Tax would be good for many aspects of our economy and our society in general, as I explained here. I really hope the government has the sense to implement this and doesnt bow to pressure from those who constantly bitch about the way things are, yet oppose any changes to the system, even if said change is fairer and more equitable than the current system.

woodoo

The big weakness in the idea of a site tax based on sq metres is that there are thousands of houses built on the outskirts of small towns and villages around Ireland with big gardens. Big gardens in rural Ireland means nothing it certainly doesn't mean you are rich.

opti0nal

woodoo wrote: »

The big weakness in the idea of a site tax based on sq metres is that there are thousands of houses built on the outskirts of small towns and villages around Ireland with big gardens. Big gardens in rural Ireland means nothing it certainly doesn't mean you are rich.

Rural dwellers want a tax based on property or site value as they then would pay less than city dwellers.

Owning a house in Dublin which has become valuable as a good neighbourhood and community grew around it, does not make the owner financially rich.

Any tax should be based on the costs of providing the services it is designed to finance. This would mean that efficient, low-cost parts of the country could attract people with lower taxation.

hognef

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

A Site Value Tax would be good for many aspects of our economy and our society in general, as I explained here. I really hope the government has the sense to implement this and doesnt bow to pressure from those who constantly bitch about the way things are, yet oppose any changes to the system, even if said change is fairer and more equitable than the current system.

Let's say a given property in Leitrim is worth €100k and of that total, the site is worth €10k. The house itself is therefore worth €90k. A similar property in Dublin might be worth €400k. The house itself is still worth €90k.

The only difference between the two properties is the location, in other words the site. The Dublin site is therefore worth €310k.

What is the fairest way to tax the properties? Site value or overall property value?

A site value tax would give the Leitrim property a tax base of only €10k, vs €310k in Dublin.

A property value tax would be based on €100k in Leitrim vs €400k in Dublin.

Assuming a flat tax rate (which probably won't happen, but it illustrates my point), the site value tax would see the Dublin owner pay 31 times the tax of the Leitrim owner. This compares to a ratio of 4 with a property value tax.

Which makes most sense now? Surely a site value tax will see city dwellers pay an unreasonably high proportion of the overall tax?

Or am I misunderstanding what is meant by a site value tax?

murphaph

opti0nal wrote: »

More road tolling would be a better idea as this would encourage people to drive less and would help keep carbon emissions down. A win-win.

It would encourage people to drive on non-toll roads.

There should be no toll roads. Either the road has an economic value or it does not. If it does, the taxpayer should fund it (possibly through shadow tolling).

Taxation designed to encourage people to drive less is admirable however. Stick it on fuel and abolish VRT and Motor Tax as well IMO. Tax those doing the driving, not those who buy a car for occasional use but take environmentally sound public transport to work mon-fri.

n97 mini

hognef wrote: »

Surely a site value tax will see city dwellers pay an unreasonably high proportion of the overall tax?

Doesn't that happen anyway? Aren't city folk subsidising the living standards of their rural brethren?

PARKHEAD67

n97 mini wrote: »

Doesn't that happen anyway? Aren't city folk subsidising the living standards of their rural brethren?

What????????? Where did you get that chip on your shoulder?We cant all live in Dublin or Cork.And we dont all want to.

esperanza1

A friend of mine living in France pays €500 every month in property & site tax. Yet, the house and garden they own are quite small and the family have been on a very low income for the past decade. Where is the fairness in making the less well-off pay for land and house that they already bought???

Anyone who believes a site tax or property tax is justified needs a reality check. Our government is wasting literally billions paying back hedge fund investors, bondholders, etc., not to mention the money wasted by paying themselves inflated salaries. How many advisors did Kenny take with him to Brussels recently? How much do each of them get paid? And what valuable advice have they given?

How about finding this €3 billion elsewhere, like taxing the richest in society. Calculations from the Department of Finance show €3 billion can be found this way.

I live in a rural area, we are not farmers but do own land, quite a bit of it. If they plan on taxing us for every square metre, we simply won't be able to pay. We're already struggling to pay our bills. I'm sure many more people around the country are in the same boat. Can't pay, won't pay.

opti0nal

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

What????????? Where did you get that chip on your shoulder?We cant all live in Dublin or Cork.And we dont all want to.

He merely asserted a fact. Surely city dwellers don't have to subsidise rural lifestyle preferences?

tayto lover

robd wrote: »

Exactly it was said by Ronan Lyons who normally associates himself with Daft.ie at a conference on economics.

That lad needs a Hackballscross uppercut badly, right in the crigs.

Godge

esperanza1 wrote: »

A friend of mine living in France pays €500 every month in property & site tax. Yet, the house and garden they own are quite small and the family have been on a very low income for the past decade. Where is the fairness in making the less well-off pay for land and house that they already bought???

Anyone who believes a site tax or property tax is justified needs a reality check. Our government is wasting literally billions paying back hedge fund investors, bondholders, etc., not to mention the money wasted by paying themselves inflated salaries. How many advisors did Kenny take with him to Brussels recently? How much do each of them get paid? And what valuable advice have they given?

How about finding this €3 billion elsewhere, like taxing the richest in society. Calculations from the Department of Finance show €3 billion can be found this way.

I live in a rural area, we are not farmers but do own land, quite a bit of it. If they plan on taxing us for every square metre, we simply won't be able to pay. We're already struggling to pay our bills. I'm sure many more people around the country are in the same boat. Can't pay, won't pay.

The bit in bold is an oxymoron. You are not less well-off if you own property or land. The less well-off are renting or living on the streets and can only dream of owning a property. I am sick and tired of the whinging and moaning coming from the property-owners of this country who by definition are richer than the 20% or so who live in rented accommodation, council accommodation or with friends or relatives and who don't own property.

If you can't afford the tax, sell the land to someone who will use it and generate income from it and you can rent somewhere else.

A property tax is a great idea as it taxes people who just sit on bits of land that they own, not even farming it, just letting it sit there. It would help the economy if they had to get up off their arses and build a business on the piece of land or develop it. If we can reduce income taxes as a result on the people in this country who are actually productive and get up and work or start a business, then the property tax is an even better idea.

PARKHEAD67

opti0nal wrote: »

He merely asserted a fact. Surely city dwellers don't have to subsidise rural lifestyle preferences?

Preferences?Are you for real? So if you happen to have a job in a rural location and you happen to build a house nearby, you should be punished?? FFS, get a grip man.Say you have a job in Lissycasey Co. Clare for example.The next biggest town is Ennis a good 12 or so miles from Lissycasey.Should the man with a job in Lissycasey seek a house in Ennis or Lissycasey? Your point is completely invalid.

PARKHEAD67

opti0nal wrote: »

He merely asserted a fact. Surely city dwellers don't have to subsidise rural lifestyle preferences?

They never did.They dont now.And they never will. Move on.

opti0nal

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

Preferences?Are you for real? So if you happen to have a job in a rural location and you happen to build a house nearby, you should be punished?? .

Who said they should be punished?

I want local taxes to reflect local costs, is that not fair?

Pete_Cavan

hognef wrote: »

Let's say a given property in Leitrim is worth €100k and of that total, the site is worth €10k. The house itself is therefore worth €90k. A similar property in Dublin might be worth €400k. The house itself is still worth €90k.

The only difference between the two properties is the location, in other words the site. The Dublin site is therefore worth €310k.

What is the fairest way to tax the properties? Site value or overall property value?

A site value tax would give the Leitrim property a tax base of only €10k, vs €310k in Dublin.

A property value tax would be based on €100k in Leitrim vs €400k in Dublin.

Assuming a flat tax rate (which probably won't happen, but it illustrates my point), the site value tax would see the Dublin owner pay 31 times the tax of the Leitrim owner. This compares to a ratio of 4 with a property value tax.

Which makes most sense now? Surely a site value tax will see city dwellers pay an unreasonably high proportion of the overall tax?

Or am I misunderstanding what is meant by a site value tax?

The value of land is based on what people are willing to pay for it. If people are not willing to pay €310k for that parcel of land because of the tax it would incur, the value of the land will fall. And in the same way, the prospective developer will have factored in LVT when he estimates the price he can pay for development land. This will result in closing the gap between the amount of tax payable on the land in Dublin and the land in Leitrim. Regardless, urban areas do, and always will, contribute more in taxes (seeing as most of our taxes are levied against income and transactions, and more income is earned and more transactions take place in urban areas).

esperanza1 wrote: »

A friend of mine living in France pays €500 every month in property & site tax. Yet, the house and garden they own are quite small and the family have been on a very low income for the past decade. Where is the fairness in making the less well-off pay for land and house that they already bought???

Anyone who believes a site tax or property tax is justified needs a reality check. Our government is wasting literally billions paying back hedge fund investors, bondholders, etc., not to mention the money wasted by paying themselves inflated salaries. How many advisors did Kenny take with him to Brussels recently? How much do each of them get paid? And what valuable advice have they given?

How about finding this €3 billion elsewhere, like taxing the richest in society. Calculations from the Department of Finance show €3 billion can be found this way.

I live in a rural area, we are not farmers but do own land, quite a bit of it. If they plan on taxing us for every square metre, we simply won't be able to pay. We're already struggling to pay our bills. I'm sure many more people around the country are in the same boat. Can't pay, won't pay.

Right, so you have "quite a bit of land" but dont put it to productive use. Why do you keep this land then; do you get grants for owning marginal land, do you antisipate the value of the land to rise in the near future, or do you simply like pretending to be lord of the manor? Land as a factor of production is fixed in supply so therefore it should be used efficiently. If you do not put the land to productive use, then you should pay society for preventing anyone else from using it. If you cant afford to pay tax on the land then you can avoid the tax altogether by selling the land, the new owner would put the land to productive use, benefiting society. As Michael Davitt, founder of the Irish National Land League in the late 1800s, said;

I would abolish land monopoly by simply taxing all land, exclusive of improvements, up to its full value...In other words, I would recognize private property in the results of labour, and not in land.

Basically, it is not good enough to just own land, you should use it to produce some sort of economic output or sell it on to someone else who will.

hognef

The value of land is based on what people are willing to pay for it. If people are not willing to pay €310k for that parcel of land because of the tax it would incur, the value of the land will fall. And in the same way, the prospective developer will have factored in LVT when he estimates the price he can pay for development land. This will result in closing the gap between the amount of tax payable on the land in Dublin and the land in Leitrim.

Exactly the same could be said about a tax on the overall property value, except that will have a closer gap from day 1. What exactly is the benefit in a land value tax over a general property tax?

n97 mini

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

Preferences?Are you for real? So if you happen to have a job in a rural location and you happen to build a house nearby, you should be punished??

No you shouldn't be punished, but neither should the man in Dublin. You should pay the cost of the services provided to you.

I was listening to the radio today, to people from Longford/Leitrim/Roscommon complaining that their rural schools will go from 6 pupils per class to 10, and that the people of Dublin aren't taking a hit. And they're right. My son's class already has 28 pupils!

PARKHEAD67

n97 mini wrote: »

No you shouldn't be punished, but neither should the man in Dublin. You should pay the cost of the services provided to you.

I was listening to the radio today, to people from Longford/Leitrim/Roscommon complaining that their rural schools will go from 6 pupils per class to 10, and that the people of Dublin aren't taking a hit. And they're right. My son's class already has 28 pupils!

I get no services provided for me.I have paid 3600 euros to my local council as gratuity.That means I gave them 3600 euros for nothing basically before I even build a house.DO NOT go on to me about urban and rural.They screw us all over.

MadsL

I get no services provided for me

Absolute bullcrap. Unless you have opted out of society and live like a hermit you have exactly the same services provided to you as the rest of the population; if you choose not to avail of them that is your lookout. And if you whinge that they are too far away; guess what, move! But don't pretend like you get any less than the rest of us.

before I even build a house

Then don't build it.

n97 mini

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

I get no services provided for me.I have paid 3600 euros to my local council as gratuity.That means I gave them 3600 euros for nothing basically before I even build a house.DO NOT go on to me about urban and rural.They screw us all over.

Haven't you...
A road outside your house that council pays to maintain?
An electricity supply?
A telephone?
Broadband?
Post delivered to you door?
Access to a fire service?
Access to an ambulance service?
Refuse collection?
Access to a rural school?
Possibly access to a school bus service?

Do you feel you provided the full cost of getting these services to you?

wiseguy

I live in a rural location lets go thru all of these

n97 mini wrote: »

Haven't you...
A road outside your house that council pays to maintain?

Maintain? hahaha :mad: its all potholes within potholes, and I pay more than enough in motortaxes and fuel as is, in fact the whole country pays more than enough in motor taxation to not only maintain the current network but to pay for more motorways, go check the Infrastructure forum for stats.

n97 mini wrote: »

An electricity supply?

Had to pay several thousand for ESB to connect the house despite homes on either side (10m each direction) being connected and line going thru my property
Also have to pay higher standing charges.

Since when is it the job of council to provide electricity?

n97 mini wrote: »

Broadband?

What broadband? since when is it the job of council to provide broadband?

n97 mini wrote: »

Post delivered to you door?

Postman is more than happy to deliver more spam than post, since that makes An post plenty of money

since when is it the job of the council to deliver Post?

n97 mini wrote: »

Access to a fire service?
Access to an ambulance service?

By the time either gets here the house would burn down and/or me die
In rural locations neighbours help each other (and actually talk to each other!)

n97 mini wrote: »

Refuse collection?

Drive rubbish to the dump myself

n97 mini wrote: »

Access to a rural school?
Possibly access to a school bus service?

what schools? the dept is promising one for years

n97 mini wrote: »

Do you feel you provided the full cost of getting these services to you?

I paid 60K in taxes last year, my company paid 80K

a big ****ing yes :mad:

n97 mini

wiseguy wrote: »

Maintain? hahaha :mad: its all potholes within potholes,

If it's that bad, when the council eventually do fix it then all your taxes combined and multiplied by two won't cover it.

Of course the right thing for the council to do would have been to stick to the law banning one-offs and refuse you planning permission in the first place. Then you'd have nothing to whinge about.

But of course, when there's an emergency and the subsidised ambulance comes to get you, you can have a nice chat with your neighbours while you have that long wait. Cos that's what neighbours in rural locations do.

noodler

Country still spending 16bn more than it takes in.

Pretty everyone agrees the gap needs to be closed.

Ideas are put forward for a "fair" property tax based on value which isn't uncommon in many OECD countries who have such taxes.

Everyone poo-poos the idea.

opti0nal

noodler wrote: »

Pretty everyone agrees the gap needs to be closed.
Ideas are put forward for a "fair" property tax based on value which isn't uncommon in many OECD countries who have such taxes.

Everyone poo-poos the idea.

It's hardly fair if it's an attack on the right to own property and it bears no relation to the services consumed by the property. Imagine, you owned a nice watch. You paid VAT at 23% when you bought it and you paid income tax and social charges of nearly 50% on the money you used to make the purchase. Would it not be outrageous to tax you on your possession of that watch? Wouldn't this mean, in effect that you could not own any property without the government cutting itself in for an abitrary percentage?

PARKHEAD67

MadsL wrote: »

Absolute bullcrap. Unless you have opted out of society and live like a hermit you have exactly the same services provided to you as the rest of the population; if you choose not to avail of them that is your lookout. And if you whinge that they are too far away; guess what, move! But don't pretend like you get any less than the rest of us.



Then don't build it.[/QUOTE]
Okay so.bloody moronic response.

Farmer Pudsey

n97 mini wrote: »

Haven't you...
A road outside your house that council pays to maintain? (full of Potholes)
An electricity supply? (2000 euro for connection first day)
A telephone? ( 100 euro connection+100/month)
Broadband? N/A
Post delivered to you door? yes
Access to a fire service? Part Time
Access to an ambulance service? 30 miles away
Refuse collection? (300 euro a year)
Access to a rural school? (yes
Possibly access to a school bus service? ( No but even if I had I have to pay for it)

Do you feel you provided the full cost of getting these services to you?Yes yes yes

Also the so called economist that proposed that the average tax would be around 650 euro X 50 = 32500 you get very few sites in Ireland for this money he is not much of a math expert