Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dun Laoghaire Thread. No traffic, commuting, transport chat.

Options
1212224262729

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,243 ✭✭✭Mav11


    The Lexicon at a cost of €37m?

    But you knew that, didn't you?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,243 ✭✭✭Mav11


    Again correct and I agree with most of the points above.

    However I do have some sympathy or understanding on the transfer of a portion of lpt to counties who are not as fortunate as DLR in terms of population or property valuation. They have infrastructure and services to maintain also.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,472 ✭✭✭dublinman1990


    Teddy's Ice Cream were having some Flakey moments with sales of their 99's being poorer than usual from their customers in Dun Laoghaire.

    In all seriousness though; Cadburys had delivered some bad quality flake bars to Teddy's recently.

    Is this issue the norm with other ice cream shops in Dún Laoghaire?

    What about the newsagents and supermarkets as well. Are they having problems with Cadburys sending bad products for stock in their stores?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,453 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams




  • Registered Users Posts: 24,059 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    This is exactly my point. There is a complete lack of understanding as to how the Council is financed.

    The Lexicon is an example of capital expenditure. It was funded by a combination of development levies from residential and commercial property built in the years prior, central government grants for cultural development and the sale of other assets.

    Not one cent of LPT went into the Lexicon, or the Samuel Beckett complex, or Dun Laoghaire Baths or Blackrock Library, or any major building project undertaken by the Council.

    It may be the fault of the Government that communication of the purpose of LPT is so poor, but it's a fact nonetheless and so the expectations around LPT and perceived wealth and capacity of the City and County Councils, by ordinary citizens who are having to pay it, is warped.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,453 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Yep, but would it not be fairer for central govt to make up the shortfall for other counties.

    It shouldnt be Jim in Sandyford paying tax on his home for roads in Roscommon.

    It seems profoundly unfair to introduce a tax on property to pay for local services and then divert over a third of the cash.

    With the extra money, we may have seen a swimming pool at DL baths! :)



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,967 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Now do the more typical example of the double income couple who bought their €800k house in DLR and put another €400k into the property Dermot Bannon style, and are now faced with a modest annual property tax, less that what they paid for their granite worktop, well below equivalent rates in most of Europe.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,345 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    That story comes out every year when the weather gets good from the 99 vendors to boost sales, used to be that there wouldn't enough stock of them to last the summer



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,243 ✭✭✭Mav11


    With all due respect you're in the business of planning, mine is economics and finance.

    You are taking a very academic and incorrect position on government finances. Yes, theoretically current expenditure cannot come from capital or vice versa, unless departmentally sanctioned. In real life, an overspend on one can be offset by a saving on the other. A surplus of lpt can be and is used to indirectly subsidise an increase in capital expenditure.

    All in the nature of the horse trades at budget time.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,243 ✭✭✭Mav11


    One of the primary functions of government is the distribution of wealth across the economy. If central government were to make up the funding centrally they would have to raise the money somewhere and in turn that would have to be paid for. So Sandyford Jim would end paying for it anyway. At least this way there can be a local say as to how the money is spent.

    Overall, makes for a fairer and less divisive society.

    End of lectures for the evening 😁



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 48 Perks


    Wish DLRCOCO would scoop up the boulders from the corner of the East pier and drop them 100m out to Sea.

    Could be a TOTS banging swimming/diving spot.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,059 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Why would I, they're going to vote regarding the imposition of LPT as if they are in the prior category anyway!



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,453 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    If central govt funded the shortfall, Sandyford Jim would indeed pay a little towards funding projects in Roscommon, but he would pay less to Roscommon than he does today because the centralised cost is borne by the tax payer and aggregated across the country.

    So Rosie in Roscommon would also pay a little for her local projects, which seems fair to me, as Rosie is the one benefitting. Not Jim. And Jim is still contributing anyway (thanks Jim)

    Local councils would still get to choose how they spend their LPT, but those in surplus would keep more of their own Revenue and end up with a larger pot.

    I still dont understand the Columm L percentage on the chart and how it is calculated. I think its the discount/increment applied to the LPT by the local council?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,243 ✭✭✭Mav11


    Coincidently the release of new census data yesterday indicates that the increased population to 5.1m is driven largely by migration.

    Interestingly, most of these migrants want to live on the east coast. Because I would suggest, that is where all the services are! So, looking at demographic trends we can't have everybody living in Dublin and surrounds, so the rest of the country (incl Roscommon) will have to be made more attractive to live, in terms of available services.

    These counties, with their current demographic could never afford to provide the services that we enjoy in DLR and become attractive to live in, hence the need to transfer wealth.

    Bit of a chicken and egg predicament really!!!



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 23,216 Mod ✭✭✭✭godtabh


    Thats Patrick Street, Dun Laoghiare. No issue with parking along there



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,453 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    But the residents are not receiving the full benefit from the LPT, so surely it would be unfair to charge them more.

    DLR reidents only recieve 65% of their LPT Revenue. The rest of it is transferred out of the county and out of Dublin altogether.

    1 in 3 properties in DLR are therefore not contributing to LPT funded services in their own council. Crazy stuff!

    In the UK, Council tax stays in your local council and pays for services including waste collection.

    So its fair that you pay more, as you get more back.

    An increase in LPT for DLR just charges DLR residents more so they can give more to rural counties.

    DLR residents would be out of pocket and wont see the benefit.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,016 ✭✭✭Blut2


    The argument against that is without LPT from DLR flowing to poorer areas then those poorer rural areas become more and more unattractive to live in over the years, and DLR becomes more and more attractive. So people flow from those poorer areas into DLR in large numbers, rapidly pushing up demand, crowding, and prices in DLR.

    If someone from DLR ever wants their children to be able to afford to live near where they grew up then, or less traffic on the roads, or the ability to get a local GP, or spaces in local schools etc its in their own interests to try and make other parts of the country at least somewhat attractive to live in.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,453 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    I agree with your principle, but I would argue it is the govts job to invest centrally in areas that require additional infrastructure in Mayo & Roscommon, not the job of private residents in County Dublin.

    The LPT is based specifically on the value of your own home and its only fair that if you are being asked to pay a local tax to your local council, the proceeds should be invested locally.

    I'd have no issue with rural counties recieving a greater amount of centralised funding, because the monies used to pay for that funding are generated nationally and souced from Income Tax.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,016 ✭✭✭Blut2


    Where do you think the central government gets its funding? Its predominantly from high income & high population density places like DLR.

    By following the same logic you're using why should DLR residents, who pay more PAYE than almost any other area, see that tax money being used in other areas and not their own?

    Or why should local DLR businesses, who raise more VAT than businesses in almost any other area in the country, see that tax money being used in other areas and not their own?

    etc

    Theres no way of arguing that LPT should be 100% ringfenced to just the locality its collected in but not other taxes. Its not logically or morally consistent to argue for one specific tax to be completely different from the others.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,306 ✭✭✭markpb


    The problem for me is not the cross subsidisation, it’s that the government sold LPT on the strength of it being a local tax for local services. If it’s not that, it’s just a tax and should be collected by revenue as IT or something similar. What’s the point of creating a new tax to do the opposite of what it says and then give councils the ability to set that tax rate but not collect or spend it some potion of it?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,453 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Income Tax is a tax on your job and isnt affected by where you live.

    It is paid directly to the national government.

    LPT is based solely on where you live and the premise of the tax is that it is raised to support the locality in which is it paid.

    Therefore, It is paid directly to your local council.

    The two things are very different.

    As mentioned, I am not saying the poorer counties shouldnt get a greater share of income tax or VAT revenues if they are seeing a shortfall, but a council tax should stay within the council.

    Otherwise we might start giving every third shopping bag at Dunnes in Cornelscourt to the West of Ireland. :)



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,472 ✭✭✭dublinman1990


    There was some official opening of a new facility at a public park from Mary Hanafin & Darragh O'Brien in the Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown area yesterday.

    Does anyone here know where that was opened yesterday. I watched some pictures of it on the news on VM2 last night.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,492 ✭✭✭RosieJoe




  • Registered Users Posts: 24,059 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Exactly.

    Taking away the focus of investment and development from the east is a hell of a lot bigger issue than LPT redistribution.

    Successive Governments have given mere lip service to prioritising a focus on regional cities and towns and their rural hinterlands, for 50 odd years or more.

    The National Spatial Strategy expired 3 years ago and its successor, the National Planning Framework isn't even fully operational yet.

    To my mind, it's one of the most important policy issues for economic growth, the housing crisis and climate sustainability and yet its stuck in the weeds while we have a rather random and aimless Project Ireland 2040 scattering tens of billions around with little or no strategy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,474 ✭✭✭Glencarraig


    They are there for a reason, not just "left over" from the building of the pier. If they were not there you wouldn't have much of a pier left after a few winter storms.



  • Registered Users Posts: 48 Perks


    Did I say they were "left over"? No. I know they are there for a reason. Nobody said anything about taking them away.

    The suggestion was they could be a hundred meters further out and still hold the same function adding a top notch bathing spot on the inside of them.

    They do not need to be dumped where they were dumped.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,059 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Are you a Civil Engineer with marine and coastal protection experience?

    Have you even read up on the topic?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,243 ✭✭✭Mav11


    Interesting take on the issue from Jennifer O'Connell in this mornings IT.

    Kinda sums it up really, particularly that "money and services must follow" !

    The reality then, as now, was that Dublin needed fewer people and the rest of Ireland needed more. Dublin was swelling like an abscess, pulling everything in its hinterland towards it, and turning other counties into effectively dormitory communities. It was a virtuous cycle, until it became a vicious one.

    and

    But now, partly due to dreadful events of the past few years, the first signs of a rebalancing are under way. The long, slow, bleed from rural Ireland is being stemmed. If we are to make the most of this opportunity to revitalise the secondary cities and towns, money and services must follow.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,059 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Fine, it doesn't have to be LPT.

    There are already multiple funding streams for the less well off areas of the Country to improve infrastructure and services and we are looking at a massive tax surplus over the next few years which if used prudently, could invest strategically in the regions to provide employment and schools and hospitals and homes.

    Where you have people, you have growth and prosperity and the narrative that the big cities need to lose a chunk of the after-tax income they are already paying to LPT redistribution can end for good.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,243 ✭✭✭Mav11


    I don't think that you understand the difference between taxing income and taxing wealth. LPT in principle, was designed to transfer from wealthy to less wealthy areas. The wealth of an area is best reflected by its properties and available services.

    The examples above involve taxing income, whereas LPT is the first real attempt to tax and transfer wealth in the economy. We are already amongst the most heavily taxed individuals in terms of income and you want to tax more?

    The current massive surplus which is probably temporary would be better utilised reducing our current massive debt, on which we are paying massive interest every year.

    BTW and before you start, while I do believe in the principle of taxing and transferring wealth, there are better and fairer models of collecting lpt, than the one currently being used.



Advertisement