Dun Laoghaire Traffic & Commuting Chat

JayRoc wrote: »

It's worth 1million= it's a mansion.

Well that’s just silly

JayRoc wrote: »

TL/DR: Fella lives in a 1million Euro gaff wants us to feel sorry he has to dip into the "savings" to pay his 2-grand property tax &#55357;&#56834;

I purchased my house in the early 1990's. It was not worth anywhere near a million then.

I am not asking anyone to feel sorry for me.

Living Off The Splash wrote: »

If it was based on the 2013 value then my tax demand would not have changed. As I have received a new increased tax demand this week it would appear that they are taking the 2020 value of my house to assess my tax. Or maybe they are not, but just returning to the greasy till, in the middle of a pandemic to increase their coffers.

The increase (which is actually a reduction of a previous decrease) is precisely nothing to do with cycle lanes. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Cyrus wrote: »

Women are scared , great to have strong men like you to show them how, it’s like the 1950s in here !

You brought up the gender issue yourself, not me.
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/fitness/why-are-so-few-teenage-girls-cycling-to-school-1.4043983

Cyrus wrote: »

There are plenty of small 1m properties around , of course it depends on what your definition of large and small is but suggesting someone gets a lodger without understanding who is in the house and how big it is just silly .

I can only imagine how hard it must be to find a little bit of space in these (checks notes) 'small' €1m properties in the DLR area.

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/dublin/property-for-sale-in-dublin-south-county?minprice=1000000

Cyrus wrote: »

And the roads are bad, I was only dalkey avenue and Killiney hill road today both littered with pot holes, given the value of the houses along those roads and the property and income and every other kind of tax they pay those roads should be better.

Gotta love the level of entitlement shown here, that the roads in the 'nice areas' should get the best maintenance, not the roads that actually need it most.

Living Off The Splash wrote: »

No. As a motorist of 50 years I have paid lots of taxes associated with motoring.

As a cyclist I think that you should start contributing as well.

Watch the whinging when that happens.

You've paid nothing near the true cost of motoring, which is largely paid by society as a whole, including those who don't drive.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/01/24/motorists-should-pay-full-costs-of-road-pollution-deaths-and-damage-says-eu-transport-commissioner/?sh=4318376c2c0b

Take a quick look at what's happening in smarter countries, where cyclists are being incentivised, subsidised and in some cases, actually being paid to cycle, given the substantial benefits that arise for society as a whole - environmental benefits, traffic reduction benefits, public health benefits.

As another poster advised you, read the room.

Living Off The Splash wrote: »

If it was based on the 2013 value then my tax demand would not have changed. As I have received a new increased tax demand this week it would appear that they are taking the 2020 value of my house to assess my tax. Or maybe they are not, but just returning to the greasy till, in the middle of a pandemic to increase their coffers.

Your tax demand changed as they removed the 15% discount they were offering for the past few years. You should check to ensure it’s off the 2013 value.

Awaaf wrote: »

A property tax should be there to raise revenue but also to encourage sensible and efficient use of valuable housing assets. In raising revenue it has a lot of advantages as a tax as it hits those who own a lot of property who may be able to avoid other taxes. As regards efficient use of property it discourages sitting on property and encourages those who struggle to pay to downsize and let families occupy larger houses.

The problem in my view is that this is a stick only approach and many of these people are elderly and struggle to respond effectively to this measure. I feel what is needed is an agency which is focused on aiding elderly people who are asset rich and cash poor to downsize i.e. managing the whole process of offering them viable alternatives until they are happy to sign up and move on.

In fact this agencies remit could be expanded to encourage whole streets with development potential for large scale housing schemes near public transport to be freed up through generous incentives.

These people generally got enough incentives. The State subsidised property ownership for years, through mortgage interest tax relief, again at the expense of society at large.

Do we really have to 'incentivise' the people with the best balance sheets again?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The increase (which is actually a reduction of a previous decrease) is precisely nothing to do with cycle lanes. You're barking up the wrong tree.

You brought up the gender issue yourself, not me.
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/fitness/why-are-so-few-teenage-girls-cycling-to-school-1.4043983

I can only imagine how hard it must be to find a little bit of space in these (checks notes) 'small' €1m properties in the DLR area.

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/dublin/property-for-sale-in-dublin-south-county?minprice=1000000

Gotta love the level of entitlement shown here, that the roads in the 'nice areas' should get the best maintenance, not the roads that actually need it most.

Ah you missed my little joke the cycling bros are you and ted like the super Mario bros only pedal powered , not the collective of middle aged men in Lycra who need a reason to avoid their family on a Sunday. And you have mentioned about women being scared to cycle before so its not the first time.

The first house that shows in your search is a mighty 122 sq/m , great let’s run a B and B from it .

And sense of entitlement? Maybe but is it too much to ask that the people who pay the highest property taxes and most likely the most in other taxes as well have a road that isn’t littered with pot holes ? It would also be safer for our blessed cyclists too and given the speed they travel down dalkey avenue that can only be a good thing right ?

Springy Turf

Living Off The Splash wrote: »

No. As a motorist of 50 years I have paid lots of taxes associated with motoring.

As a cyclist I think that you should start contributing as well.

Watch the whinging when that happens.

What you need to realise is that disincentivizing cycling through taxation would be a huge net negative on society.

JayRoc

Cyrus wrote: »

And sense of entitlement? Maybe but is it too much to ask that the people who pay the highest property taxes and most likely the most in other taxes as well have a road that isn’t littered with pot holes ? ?

Ok. Dunno where anyone got a sense of entitlement from

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

These people generally got enough incentives. The State subsidised property ownership for years, through mortgage interest tax relief, again at the expense of society at large.

Do we really have to 'incentivise' the people with the best balance sheets again?

Incentives for home ownership are at the expense of society at large ? Who exactly is society at large then? You need to be unable to buy a house to be considered? I’d argue there is also plenty of incentives for that cohort too.

Springy Turf

Cyrus wrote: »

Ah you missed my little joke the cycling bros are you and ted like the super Mario bros only pedal powered , not the collective of middle aged men in Lycra who need a reason to avoid their family on a Sunday. And you have mentioned about women being scared to cycle before so its not the first time.

The first house that shows in your search is a mighty 122 sq/m , great let’s run a B and B from it .

And sense of entitlement? Maybe but is it too much to ask that the people who pay the highest property taxes and most likely the most in other taxes as well have a road that isn’t littered with pot holes ? It would also be safer for our blessed cyclists too and given the speed they travel down dalkey avenue that can only be a good thing right ?

I also live in DLR and I have to say in general I am pretty happy with how our public space is maintained.

Cyrus wrote: »

And sense of entitlement? Maybe but is it too much to ask that the people who pay the highest property taxes and most likely the most in other taxes as well have a road that isn’t littered with pot holes ? It would also be safer for our blessed cyclists too and given the speed they travel down dalkey avenue that can only be a good thing right ?

Doesn’t quite work that way. Take a big house in Dalkey. Paying say 2-3k property tax, now knock it down and build 100 apartments all who will pay less than the original house but collectively pay more. So it translates to higher density cheaper house pay more than larger houses.

ted1 wrote: »

If he had financial issues and was struggling to pay his LPT the sensible thing would be to downsize.

No. I don't have financial issues. But I don't see why I should have to pay more tax on top of an already high amount just because my local county council demands it.

Nor am I certain that the sensible thing to do is to downsize. Many older people have lived in their homes for a long time. They like where they live, they like their neighbours. They are familiar with their local shops, transport etc.

I just do not understand why people think that they should move aside for some one else.

Many are empty nesters but their houses are often full of grand children at weekends and during holiday time, staying over (as in my case).

The easy answer is suggest to them to downsize. It is trotted out on a regular basis. I wonder if everyone giving this advice will do the same when it comes to them.

Dun Laoghaire Rathdown are looking for more property tax. Why?

What do they need the money for? They probably gather the most Property Tax compared to anywhere else in the country.

Springy Turf wrote: »

I also live in DLR and I have to say in general I am pretty happy with how our public space is maintained.

Generally I am too

Specifically with regard to the roads mentioned I am not .

ted1 wrote: »

Doesn’t quite work that way. Take a big house in Dalkey. Paying say 2-3k property tax, now knock it down and build 100 apartments all who will pay less than the original house but collectively pay more. So it translates to higher density cheaper house pay more than larger houses.

Dlr takes in the highest amount of lpt in the country, the roads should be better.

ted1 wrote: »

Like a proportional charge.
Bike+rider =80kg
Car+driver =1500kg

Bike takes up about 6 Sq feet
Car takes up about 90 sq feet

Braking and torque pressure transfer from wheels to road is vastly difference.

Road space giving to cyclists = minimal
Raif space giving to cars in the council area = several thousand

What about a footpath tax, should we charge pedestrians?

I could go. Bit other than begrudgary can you tell me why you think there should be one.

So do you think that cyclists should pay a tax to use the roads?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You've paid nothing near the true cost of motoring, which is largely paid by society as a whole, including those who don't drive.

...and don't forget poor Ted who has to leave his car in his driveway and cycle to work. I can understand that he has to do this due to the high cost of parking in the city centre areas.....very unfair. I hope his wife at least gets to use it.....

MonkstownHoop

Think I'll unfollow this thread until this crap is over

haskellgeek

The problem for you is that it's an emissions based system post 2008 vehicles, so all bicyces fall into the 0 emissions category so 120 a year. Average weight of a car is 1.4 tones. Average weight of a bike is circa 10kgs. So who excatly do I pay my 85c to for yearly cycling?

Living Off The Splash wrote: »

So do you think that cyclists should pay a tax to use the roads?

They do, through general taxation. Same way as pedestrians pay. It’s the free loaders on buses that don’t pay anything and get subsidied journeys.

But propositional i have no problem paying a euro a year.

Living Off The Splash wrote: »

...and don't forget poor Ted who has to leave his car in his driveway and cycle to work. I can understand that he has to do this due to the high cost of parking in the city centre areas.....very unfair. I hope his wife at least gets to use it.....

My wife had her own car , so I pay the motor tax on two cars. I have a parking space at the office but prefer the 60km Roundtrip to the airport daily as it saves me much more time.
1hr 5 each way. Faster than Driving most days. And means I don’t have to spend 90 minutes in the gym.

Cyrus wrote: »

Incentives for home ownership are at the expense of society at large ? Who exactly is society at large then? You need to be unable to buy a house to be considered? I’d argue there is also plenty of incentives for that cohort too.

Society at large is the rest of the folks who don't get to own a home, but for years, subsidised those who did get to enjoy home ownership.

Living Off The Splash wrote: »

So do you think that cyclists should pay a tax to use the roads?

So do you think that pedestrians should pay a tax to use the footpaths?

Cyrus wrote: »

Ah you missed my little joke the cycling bros are you and ted like the super Mario bros only pedal powered , not the collective of middle aged men in Lycra who need a reason to avoid their family on a Sunday. And you have mentioned about women being scared to cycle before so its not the first time.

I mentioned about women being scared to cycle in response to your 'cycling bros' jibe.

And right on schedule, there comes the misinformed lycra jibe. Any minute now it will be helmets and hi-vis, right?

Cyrus wrote: »

The first house that shows in your search is a mighty 122 sq/m , great let’s run a B and B from it .

The first house is a sponsored link, and not within the €1m search criteria, though again, you won't find too many hearts bleeding for the owners of 122 sq/m properties.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I mentioned about women being scared to cycle in response to your 'cycling bros' jibe.

And right on schedule, there comes the misinformed lycra jibe. Any minute now it will be helmets and hi-vis, right?

The first house is a sponsored link, and not within the €1m search criteria, though again, you won't find too many hearts bleeding for the owners of 122 sq/m properties.

No I’m sure society at large thinks people with massive houses that size have staff quarters and the rest ....

What’s the misinformed Lycra jibe , unfortunately for you within your ranks is that very cohort , I include some of my friends in that, too old to play team sports now, they don’t golf but need a reason to get out of the house on weekends off they go to spend a couple of grand on a bike , some white Lycra and tales of their Strava kom exploits .