The Local Property Tax Swizz
- Paul Gogarty TD
- Jul 15
- 5 min read
Updated: 4 days ago
Councillors are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Every year Councillors get to set a Local Property Tax in their administrative area. They can vote to increase up to 15%, leave the rate as is, or vote to decrease by up to 15%. Usually the latter, as nobody likes taking more tax off constituents, right? But sometimes there is pressure to release what is a small amount of additional income for the local authority. Some brave or foolhardy elected reps take the decision to reduce by less or not at all - and all hell breaks loose. Shinnerbots already tipped off in advance swing into action and PBP valiantly struggle to get some headlines off the larger party.
This is an annual ritual, part of a game created by successive Governments since 2013 to create the illusion that Councillors have more power on budgetary matters than they actually do. FF and FG know this but cynically persist. Ireland's Memorandum of Understanding with the EU/IMF goinng back to the economic crash and the bailout required the Government to introduce a recurring annual property tax. But it didn't have to be this convoluted system. It could have been more like a site valuation tax as Social Justice Ireland have called for. Havug a broad tax base is importannt because if we are too dependent on one sector and revenues dry up, this has a knock on effectthat impacts on people's lives in multiple ways,
See table attached from SDCC’s 2024/25 Budget. As you can see the lion's share of the budget is from commercial rates and "grants". These grants are a direct subvention from national taxes. The Local property tax is a relatively small amount, although the Government is happy to let people have the impression that this pays for most goods and services. It doesn't. It's a swizz.
The Government around the 2013 period decided to pass on the new property tax element to local Councils. But they gave with one hand and took with the other, retrieving a proportionate amount from grants and also rebalancing the amount raised in SDCC to give to other Councils around the country (up to 2023).
So basically, the only way for local Councils to get a small amount of additional money for footpaths, tree cutting, grass, litter picking etc is to NOT reduce the LPT by 15%, or about €20 to €40 euro per household (very rough calculation as we don't have the 2026 figures yet for the overall budget).
People rightly complain that SDCC is not spending enough on services. I see the litter on a daily basis and the cracked pavements. Yet when I called for a massive increase in fines to pay for extra litter wardens, for example, only last week, the Government said, oh, litter management is a matter for the local authority. True, but the Council can't increase the fines, so they are being disingenuous.
So, in this LPT situation Councillors must decide on balance and this year, with rates potentially being affected by Trump's tariffs, a majority of Councillors in my own area of South Dublin County voted for less of a decrease in LPT. Still a 7.5% decrease, mind you, but in effect this means a small addition to the annual amount householders will have to pay.
There are pluses and minuses to this in terms of the common good. Negative in that people will see extra money taken from their pockets. Positive in terms of extra funding for local projects, but the problem is that nobody will tangibly see that extra few hundred metres of pathway or extra estate getting trees pruned. I get that.
As a Councillor I called out the hypocrisy of FFG and the cynical actions of SF PBP by voting to NOT decrease LPT from 2014 to 2019. However, with extra costs during and after Covid I took the decision to vote for the full decrease of 15% in 2019 to 2024. I would have done the same this year as costs are still high, and look at each subsequent year on a case by case basis, but that said I can absolutely see the pressure on Councillors to try and deliver additional services when there is a clear demand for them.
The national Government has put them in this bind as local government has not been given the proper powers to raise funds locally aside from fluctuating commercial rates and have a transparent system that shows directly where people's taxes go and holds elected reps accountable for same. To add, the LPT is a skewed system whereas a site valuation tax, which stops developers hoarding land and houses lying vacant, is a better system. You can't put all eggs in the income tax basket but we while don't have a proper system, Cllrs have to work with what they are given.
That said I wouldn't be taking lectures from SF or PBP about this given they voted against amenities and infrastructure for all the new houses going into Clonburris, which will cost us all in the long run. Not to mention SF voting down motions to ensure the Kishoge train station opened before any houses. Remember, it needed a €4 million refurb of taxpayer money because it fell into disrepair, which led to on street parking narrowing the R136 Grange Castle Road. While this was an NTA decision, SF facilitated it.
This party of populism recently described Super Valu as a US-led company to score political points because they used AI to write their speeches and didn't check their facts. Three TDs repeated this in their robotic scripted speeches.
Politics is nuanced. As an opposition Independent TD I have voted with the Government a small number of times, or equally against SF motions once or twice. But the record shows that way more often I have voted with SF on a lot of Dail debates, including on Gaza, so I don't criticise all their policies, but on this one they are just playing politics. Ditto PBP who unlike left wing parties throughout Europe vote against broadening the tax base. When the revenues dry up, the cuts get bigger as a result. They all talk about the "super rich" but claim it doesn't mean you. The figures don't lie. There's some scope for extra money from those on massive incomes, but the revenue stream needs to be broad or else it collapses and people don't get paid.
It would be good to have a mature debate on taxation policy, but instead we get mud thrown. Some of it will stick, but most people are a bit more discerning.
ENDS
Some articles on why having a broad tax base makes sense and why a site valuation tax is better than the current LPT: