Workers to have property tax taken from wages - confirmed

Salmon wrote: »

In my opinion its a common misconception of urban dwellers that they subsidise the services recieved by rural dwellers. There isnt a single service provided to my home (rural) that I havent paid through the nose for! Possibly another public/private type smokescreen designed to divide and conquer the Urban/Rural dwellers whilst introducing a new method of separating you from your hard earned wages!

Maggie 2 wrote: »

There are street lights in country areas, where there are number of houses together. Country folk also use libraries and public parks, almost as much as townies!

seamus wrote: »

Your argument is that people in towns and cities should each have to pay more because they have access to services.

However, because there are more people in towns and cities, it costs less per capita to fund their services. Therefore logically those in towns and cities should be paying less than those outside of them.

Otherwise you're saying that people in cities should be required to subsidise the services of people outside cities.

Sleepy wrote: »

Exactly. Per capita, or (more importantly imo) per taxpayer, the services are cheaper to provide to urban dwellers due to economies of scale and population density. As such, urban dwellers get more services. As it stands, the cost of the provision of the inferior services received by rural dwellers (and you have no argument that living in the country means you get less services) aren't covered by the tax they contribute.

I include rural towns in this btw. So, whilst you might not have streetlights, libraries, parks or much in the way of public transport in Derrynagran, you'd find a certain level of all these in neighbouring Foxford and that level would be above what could be afforded by the taxpayers of Foxford and it's surrounding townlands. The shortfall of which, would be picked up by the taxpayers of, for example, Westport and Castlebar (which in turn are probably subsidised to some extent by the taxpayers of Galway, Cork, Dublin etc.)

Cities are the engines of the modern economy. That's not to denigrate the rural way of life or the importance of maintaining a food supply but it gets galling for us taxpayers that moved to urban centres (or in my case the capital) in order to find work when we constantly hear those we subsidise demanding exemptions from taxes on the basis that the services which we subsidise for them aren't as good as the ones we pay for ourselves.

Sleepy wrote: »

Those with the best access to services pay most towards them on a per-capita basis. In fact, they pay for more than they receive as they recognise that certains standards of services should be a universal right within their country: roads, gardai, fire services, access to health servics, access to education etc.

And I'm not arguing with you on that fact.

Yes. Unless you want to further reduce those services to just those that are affordable out of the tax revenue from each electoral district (or townland).

Because the people in that town helped contribute towards the road outside your house, the electricity and telephony infrastructure you're using to connect to this site etc. etc.

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't collect taxes from anyone and not providd any public services? Or that taxes collected from an area should be the only money spent in that area? In each of these scenarios the urban dweller would be far, far worse off than they currently are.

You're working on the misguided idea that your taxes cover the cost of the services that you are currently provided with. In order to avail of the same services available to urbanites, you would need to be paying colossal taxes. I'd wager a guess that your entire income and that of your neighbours couldn't meet the cost of providing you with such tbh.