Local Property Tax Increases

anewme

Just copped that the Council have voted to increase LPT by 7.5%.

Can we get a list of how the voting went?

Edited to add: Found the proposals here!

https://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/news/480658/kildare-home-owners-to-face-7-5-hike-in-local-property-tax-after-council-votes.html

Leg End Reject

That'll hurt when we have to update property values, when it was first introduced the market had collapsed.

daheff

disgraceful. This is what was always going to happen with lpt.

expect it to get more expensive over time.

Also i think its disgraceful that 13 councillors abstained from the vote. In votes like this an abstention is as good as voting for it. at least have the courage of your convictions to vote.

anewme

Given that both Dublin City Council and South Dublin Council have reduced by 15% it’s a bitter pill, especially as you say with the increased valuations.

Pure cop out.

Leg End Reject

daheff wrote: »

Also i think its disgraceful that 13 councillors abstained from the vote. In votes like this an abstention is as good as voting for it. at least have the courage of your convictions to vote.

This is the galling part, no doubt thinking ahead to the next local election when they can wring their hands and try to distance themselves from the decision.

n97 mini

I'm looking at the 2018 figures here and it seems €21 million was collected but €4 million was transferred to other counties, leaving €17 million. Since the council is collecting such a surplus of LPT, why do they need to increase it by 7.5%? Why not just keep more of what's collected in the county?

I also don't know why counties that are running at a loss (i.e. the recipients of cash from other counties) are allowed vary at all, especially down.

daheff

n97 mini wrote: »

Since the council is collecting such a surplus of LPT, why do they need to increase it by 7.5%? Why not just keep more of what's collected in the county?.

its to fairly redistribute whats collected across the country..... Otherwise Dublin would collect millions, have all the services and Leitrim would be a poor slum.


but it does raise a point about fairness.... if other counties are raising the minimum, they are also redistributing at the minimum too.... so disadvantaging the poorer counties.

Not to mind the taxpayers whose councils charge more.

ixus

Leg End Reject wrote: »

This is the galling part, no doubt thinking ahead to the next local election when they can wring their hands and try to distance themselves from the decision.

They wouldn't have voted for it a few months ago at the elections for sure.

More housing, higher valuations plus an increase. It will be well spent.

n97 mini

daheff wrote: »

its to fairly redistribute whats collected across the country..... Otherwise Dublin would collect millions, have all the services and Leitrim would be a poor slum.


but it does raise a point about fairness.... if other counties are raising the minimum, they are also redistributing at the minimum too.... so disadvantaging the poorer counties.

Not to mind the taxpayers whose councils charge more.

I get the redistribution thing. 10 local authorities are collecting surplus LPT, but 21 are in the red. Tipperary and Donegal last year both received €16 million from other areas... Tipperary varied their LPT up by 10%, but Donegal did not. Makes no sense to me.

lleti

A lot of whinging about LPT being increased.

You're benefitting from the house prices increasing so you can't be complaining.

is_that_so

anewme wrote: »

Given that both Dublin City Council and South Dublin Council have reduced by 15% it’s a bitter pill, especially as you say with the increased valuations.

Pure cop out.

Dublin doesn't need LPT as much, because of huge commercial rates. It's an annual "solidarity" show that puts other councils under pressure to follow suit.

ted1

anewme wrote: »

Given that both Dublin City Council and South Dublin Council have reduced by 15% it’s a bitter pill, especially as you say with the increased valuations.

Pure cop out.

Both have higher property densities and higher value houses = in take much more than Kildare council

Dublin councils take in so much they give 20% to poorer councils. They can’t justify charging more if they give it away.

ted1

lleti wrote: »

A lot of whinging about LPT being increased.

You're benefitting from the house prices increasing so you can't be complaining.

You only benefit if you sell, many have no intention of selling. It’s a tax based on speculation

ted1

n97 mini wrote: »

I'm looking at the 2018 figures here and it seems €21 million was collected but €4 million was transferred to other counties, leaving €17 million. Since the council is collecting such a surplus of LPT, why do they need to increase it by 7.5%? Why not just keep more of what's collected in the county?

I also don't know why counties that are running at a loss (i.e. the recipients of cash from other counties) are allowed vary at all, especially down.

Scroll across. Did They not give 4 million into the fund but took more than that out if it.

Checkmate19

Lpt like yahzoo hit the only way is up. This country is banjaxed.

lleti

ted1 wrote: »

You only benefit if you sell, many have no intention of selling. It’s a tax based on speculation

If you don't want to pay, you're free to sell and move to another jurastiction.

NinjaTruncs

ted1 wrote: »

Scroll across. Did They not give 4 million into the fund but took more than that out if it.

No, "2018 Distribution of Equalisation funding" is how much they took out, which for Kildare was nothing.

NinjaTruncs

lleti wrote: »

A lot of whinging about LPT being increased.

You're benefitting from the house prices increasing so you can't be complaining.

You mean people who bought or still own the property when the valuations were set. I bought three years ago, my LPT will close to double next year but my house price, since I bought, hasn't nor will it double.

This is simply a Dublin tax ( and surrounding area). I get that not all councils have the economies of scale that Dublin has so they could do with assistance, but it doesn't explain why a lot of councils who take from the fund take more from it than their own residents pay towards their own council costs.

lleti

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

You mean people who bought or still own the property when the valuations were set. I bought three years ago, my LPT will close to double next year but my house price, since I bought, hasn't nor will it double.

This is simply a Dublin tax ( and surrounding area). I get that not all councils have the economies of scale that Dublin has so they could do with assistance, but it doesn't explain why a lot of councils who take from the fund take more from it than their own residents pay towards their own council costs.

You didn't think about LPT when you were buying? It was always going to be reviewed at the 5th year. So, you're lucky your house hasn't increased in value then and it's only doubling.

Joe Public

lleti wrote: »

If you don't want to pay, you're free to sell and move to another jurastiction.

I think the vast majority of people want to stay where they are but not pay extra LPT due to a controversial vote.

Orion

lleti wrote: »

A lot of whinging about LPT being increased.

You're benefitting from the house prices increasing so you can't be complaining.

How exactly? I'm not planning on selling my house so how is the house price increase benefiting me?

Orion

lleti wrote: »

You didn't think about LPT when you were buying? It was always going to be reviewed at the 5th year. So, you're lucky your house hasn't increased in value then and it's only doubling.

I bought in 2001. And the vast majority of people have their homes in Kildare long before LPT was even an idea.

anewme

ted1 wrote: »

Both have higher property densities and higher value houses = in take much more than Kildare council

Dublin councils take in so much they give 20% to poorer councils. They can’t justify charging more if they give it away.

The exact same applies to Kildare.

They give away 20 percent too.

So that argument dues not stand up at all.

lleti

Orion wrote: »

How exactly? I'm not planning on selling my house so how is the house price increase benefiting me?

You own an asset that's increased by X amount, your net worth has increased by X amount.

lleti

Orion wrote: »

I bought in 2001. And the vast majority of people have their homes in Kildare long before LPT was even an idea.

Lucky you then, you've had a massive increase in net worth.

Sleeper12

daheff wrote: »

disgraceful. This is what was always going to happen with lpt.

expect it to get more expensive over time.

Also i think its disgraceful that 13 councillors abstained from the vote. In votes like this an abstention is as good as voting for it. at least have the courage of your convictions to vote.

There's another thread slagging off Dublin councilors because they reduced the rate, in the county that pays the most.

beertons

I've always said it should have been on the size/sq foot of the house, rather than the value.

L1011

anewme wrote: »

The exact same applies to Kildare.

They give away 20 percent too.

So that argument dues nit stand up at all.

Calling it "give away" implies its voluntary. It isn't.

It isn't just the GDA councils that are in surplus - Clare has managed to be every single year.

That councils in deficit are allowed discounted rates is nuts.

Sleeper12

beertons wrote: »

I've always said it should have been on the size/sq foot of the house, rather than the value.

Totally agree here. OAPs in ex council mid terrace tiny homes in Dublin can pay more than a family in six bed rambling, detached house in Cavan on a plot of land.

lleti

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Totally agree here. OAPs in ex council mid terrace tiny homes in Dublin can pay more than a family in six bed rambling, detached house in Cavan on a plot of land.

Which is the way it should be. People in towns have way more services.

ted1

lleti wrote: »

You own an asset that's increased by X amount, your net worth has increased by X amount.

No it hasn’t. Not until you sell it. It may be heavily mortgaged.


It’s speculative tax, any other form of accounting assets are valued at the lower or their purchase price or net realisable value.

ted1

lleti wrote: »

Which is the way it should be. People in towns have way more services.

The cost of providing services is many times greater than in rural areas. E.g the cost of providing rural broadband.

Rural remote houses should pay many times more

Sleeper12

lleti wrote: »

Which is the way it should be. People in towns have way more services.

That will be changing shortly. FG wouldn't implement the recommended changes before the election but they will be implemented

tjhook

lleti wrote: »

Which is the way it should be. People in towns have way more services.

People in towns are clustered together to make service provision cheaper per residence. People who choose to build/buy a house in an area where service provision will be expensive should pay for that.

Or, as you say yourself: "you're free to sell and move to another jurastiction".

NinjaTruncs

lleti wrote: »

Which is the way it should be. People in towns have way more services.

So people in town have way more services, as a result should pay higher lpt. How could people in the countryside get better services?

L1011

lleti wrote: »

Which is the way it should be. People in towns have way more services.

The services provided to a one-off house cost the state vastly, vastly more to provide than to those in towns and cities. There hasn't had to be any subsidy to commercial broadband rollout in towns/cities but we're looking at five figures a property for one-offs for instance.

If you paid based on cost of provision, the LPT for a McMansion would be painfully high compared to a terrace in a town.

lleti

ted1 wrote: »

No it hasn’t. Not until you sell it. It may be heavily mortgaged.


It’s speculative tax, any other form of accounting assets are valued at the lower or their purchase price or net realisable value.

If you say that then the billionaires of the world are not billionaires.

anewme

They also did not record how each member voted. Personally, I would also like to know how each Council Member voted and why those who "abstained" did so. Its also interesting that a roll call vote was not requested by the members, given that it is such an important issue. Transparency is essential.

"With 19 members voting in favour, 5 members voting against and 13 members abstaining, the motion to vary the base rate of local property tax for 2020 by +7.5% was passed at the September plenary council meeting.

A roll call vote was not requested by the members thus details of how each member voted was not recorded."

ted1

lleti wrote: »

If you say that then the billionaires of the world are not billionaires.

It’s only a label.

Joe Public

lleti wrote: »

Which is the way it should be. People in towns have way more services.

It's a property tax not a services tax.

Orion

lleti wrote: »

Lucky you then, you've had a massive increase in net worth.

Woohoo. I've got net worth that adds nothing to my disposable income. Exactly what I wanted.

lleti

Orion wrote: »

Woohoo. I've got net worth that adds nothing to my disposable income. Exactly what I wanted.

It's the exact same as being in negative equity, everyone was complaining about it a decade ago.

As I said, the likes of Bezos are called billionaires and it's not money in their account either!

NinjaTruncs

But they aren't taxed on that value until the realise it. Something you don't seem to understand, or unwilling to accept.

CSSE09

anewme wrote: »

They also did not record how each member voted. Personally, I would also like to know how each Council Member voted and why those who "abstained" did so. Its also interesting that a roll call vote was not requested by the members, given that it is such an important issue. Transparency is essential.

"With 19 members voting in favour, 5 members voting against and 13 members abstaining, the motion to vary the base rate of local property tax for 2020 by +7.5% was passed at the September plenary council meeting.

A roll call vote was not requested by the members thus details of how each member voted was not recorded."

Ide Cussen posted the names of the leixlip and celbridge councillors at least
Voted in favour: Vanessa Liston, Nuala Kileen, Joe Neville.
Voted against: Bernard Caldwell, Ide Cussen, Michael Coleman
Abstained: Ciara Galvin

There might be more info on Ides Facebook page that's where I pulled that from.

From a screenshot I took from another news site, Galvin wanted a 5% increase, McEvoy wanted 10%, Keatley proposed the 7.5% increase.

L1011

Cussen wanted a 15% decrease!

Still hasn't lost the SF magic money tree anyway

Lot of the minor fixes for annoying things that KCC had been ignoring for years are only being done due to the councillors having that 15% to spend in their own areas.

anewme

L1011 wrote: »

Cussen wanted a 15% decrease!

Still hasn't lost the SF magic money tree anyway

Lot of the minor fixes for annoying things that KCC had been ignoring for years are only being done due to the councillors having that 15% to spend in their own areas.

The 15% decrease would have left it the same as last year.

The Council are elected by the voters and gave a duty to those voters. I am tagainst those who abstain (cop out) and also the fact that the Council did not keep full and transparent voting records.

Kintarō Hattori

lleti wrote: »

You own an asset that's increased by X amount, your net worth has increased by X amount.

It's not an asset, it's a family home, a space over your head... that's how I view my home and many others too.

L1011

anewme wrote: »

The 15% decrease would have left it the same as last year.

The Council are elected by the voters and gave a duty to those voters. I am tagainst those who abstain (cop out) and also the fact that the Council did not keep full and transparent voting records.

It would have left the income the same (if even - where are you getting that from?), not the rate - and to serve a growing population

Populist nonsense from a useless populist (except when the populace don't vote the way she wants in a referendum!)

The only astute thing Cussen has ever done was in her self interest - not joining Aontu as she would never have retained her seat if she had

anewme

L1011 wrote: »

It would have left the income the same (if even - where are you getting that from?), not the rate - and to serve a growing population

Populist nonsense from a useless populist (except when the populace don't vote the way she wants in a referendum!)

The only astute thing Cussen has ever done was in her self interest - not joining Aontu as she would never have retained her seat if she had

Getting what from?

L1011

anewme wrote: »

Getting what from?

The idea that reducing the rate would have "left it the same"

lleti

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

But they aren't taxed on that value until the realise it. Something you don't seem to understand, or unwilling to accept.

I could have a million euro in shares, are you telling me I wouldn't be wealthy?