Paschal Donohoe
Dublin Central · Ireland
“I raise the importance of our economy and funding of public services, and a particularly vital public service referenced in the programme for Government. I do so from the seat in Dáil Éireann that I first pursued and held in 2011.”
“I am proud of the investment we have made through our local authorities in recent years in the funding, and opening, of new libraries. They are cradles of decency. They are beacons of light in a world in which things are changing so much.”
“I thank my own team, who have worked so closely with me over so many years to allow me to do my work as a Minister and a representative of Dublin Central. I acknowledge that this is a complex and tough week for them, and I thank them for all they have done for me to allow me to do the work I have been trusted and privileged to do.”
“I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for his support in the many committees I have appeared in front of that he has chaired and the relentless but always fair way in which he has discharged his duties. I wish everybody in this Dáil happiness, health and success in representing their constituents.”
“31 of 1999), which provides for a stamp duty to be levied on health insurance contracts that are entered into or renewed between authorised insurers and their customers in each quarter, be amended in the manner and to the extent specified in the Act giving effect to this Resolution. 19.”
“39 of 1997), which provides for tax exemptions for a unit trust which neither is, nor is deemed to be, an authorised unit trust scheme, be amended in the manner and to the extent specified in the Act giving effect to this Resolution. 7. THAT section 291A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (No.”
The complete record
Every one of 741 lines we hold for Paschal Donohoe, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 15.
“Vote 12 — Superannuation and Retired Allowances (Revised Estimate) That a sum not exceeding €139,795,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2025, for pensions, superannuation, occupational injuries, and additional and other allowances and gratuities under the Superannuation Acts 1834 to 2004 and sundry other statutes; extra-statutory pensions, allowances and gratuities awarded by the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, fees to medical referees and occasional fees to doctors; compensation and other payments in respect of personal injuries; fees to Pensions Authority and other professional fees, miscellaneous payments, etc.”
“Vote 10 — Tax Appeals Commission (Revised Estimate) That a sum not exceeding €3,929,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st Day of December 2025 for the salaries and expenses of the Tax Appeals Commission. Vote 11 — Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation (Revised Estimate) That a sum not exceeding €61,049,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2025, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, for certain services administered by the Office of the Minister and for payment of certain grants.”
“Vote 8 — Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Revised Estimate) That a sum not exceeding €11,602,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2025, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Vote 9 — Office of the Revenue Commissioners (Revised Estimate) That a sum not exceeding €562,268,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2025, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, including certain other services administered by that Office.”
“I move the following Revised Estimates: Vote 7 — Office of the Minister for Finance (Revised Estimate) That a sum not exceeding €50,679,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st Day of December 2025 for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Finance, including the Paymaster General's Office, for certain services administered by the Office of the Minister and for payment of certain grants and that a sum not exceeding €110,000 be granted by way of the application for capital supply services of unspent appropriations, the surrender of which may be deferred under Section 91 of the Finance Act 2004.”
“I move amendment No. 6: In page 5, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following section: “Amendment of section 15A of Act of 2012 7. Section 15A of the Act of 2012 is amended— (a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “€105,000” for “€50,000”, and (b) in subsection (3), by the substitution of “€105,000” for “€50,000”.”.”
“The main factor in calculating your local property tax bill is the value of your home. I do not want to introduce any further exemptions or changes to it because I am concerned that if we begin do that, it will weaken the clarity and simplicity of the tax over time. In turn, that could lead to issues in how much tax and revenue it brings in in the years ahead. While I understand the Deputy's point, for those reasons, I must differ with him on this occasion.”
“I thank the Deputy for outlining the rationale behind this amendment. I understand his point and his argument that if an estate has not been taken into charge and that leads to the local environment there not being of the same quality as in the estate beside it that has been taken into charge, then that should be reflected in the local property tax bill of the person in the estate that it is not in charge. I understand that argument and why he proposed this amendment. The reason I am not in a position to accept the amendment or make this change in the local property tax is that it is an important principle that everybody's tax be collected in the same way. While lots of people have issues and disagree with the principle of the local property tax, it is clear and simple.”
“That is why the local property tax is payable regardless of whether an estate has been taken in charge. A requirement to pay a management fee or a service charge to a property management company is not relevant in determining whether a property is subject to LPT. Accordingly, while those who are liable for these payments may be exempt from LPT for another reason or may be entitled to avail of a deferral arrangement, there is no specific exemption for the payment of management fees, nor is there provision to offset the amount paid on management fees against local property tax. This matter has been looked into in the past by the interdepartmental review group with regard to LPT and it did not recommend that persons who pay management fees be afforded relief in respect of local property tax.”
“When local property tax was introduced in 2013, the Government decided that a liability to the tax should apply to all owners of residential properties with a limited number of exemptions and no deductions. Limiting the exemptions available allows the rate to be kept low for those liable persons who do not qualify for an exemption. The proceeds of the local property tax are largely used for the general provision and maintenance of infrastructure, services and amenities in a local authority area. Accordingly, residential property owners and estates not yet taken in charge benefit from the expenditure of those proceeds in the same way as other owners of other residential properties in the general locality in terms of the provision of public roads, footpaths, lighting, open spaces, surface water drainage and other public amenities.”
“The amendment proposes to reduce the chargeable value of a property by this amount for homes that have been adapted in this manner where the conditions are met. This will ensure the administrative practice that has been in place since 2021 is put on a legislative footing. It will also ensure that homeowners with a disability who have had their homes adapted to make them more suited to them and whose homes are worth more as a result of same can avail of a reduced valuation band and ultimately pay the LPT charge that would be due if they had not had to make the necessary adaptations. Finally, amendment No. 4 updates the numbering of the referenced sections to take account of the proposed inserted section.”
“The policy objective of this section is to ensure that homeowners with a disability whose properties have realised an increase in value due to necessary adaptations having been made are not liable for a higher LPT charge as a result of those necessary adaptations. When the valuation bands were widened to €87,500 in 2021, the 2021 Act did not introduce a corresponding amendment to the Act due to a drafting oversight. When this was identified, my Department requested Revenue to allow a reduction in the chargeable value of €87,500 on an administrative basis to ensure a reduction of one valuation band for affected taxpayers. On commencement of this Bill, the valuation bands will be widened to €105,000.”
“In addition, approximately half of all local authorities have made the LAF decision for next year under the current maximum increase of 15%. Given the time now available, it is not possible for them to revoke the previous decision made and conclude a new LAF process. I therefore propose to amend section 3 to remove reference to section 8. Amendment No. 4 also ensures that a new section 7 is referenced in section 3, thereby causing this section to come into effect from 2026. The inserted section relates to properties adapted for use by people with a disability. Section 15A of the Finance (Local Property Tax) Act 2012 provides for a reduction of €50,000 in the chargeable value of a property that has been adapted in this manner. This figure of €50,000 is equivalent to the difference between LPT valuation bands between 2013 and 2021.”
“I propose the deferral of this change to the LAF following consultation with the Minister, Deputy Browne, who highlighted the significant administrative challenges for local authorities if the increase in the LAF were to take effect next year. In a revaluation year, local authorities are required to notify Revenue of the LAF by 31 August. As councillors do not meet in August, the LAF decision must be made by the end of July. Before the LAF meeting, local authorities are required to hold a public consultation of at least 30 days and provide a report on this consultation to elected members a week before the LAF meeting. There would not be enough time available for local authorities to undertake the public consultation required on the increase to 25%, hold the necessary meeting and notify Revenue in the time now available.”
“4 removes a reference to section 8 of the Bill as published, which relates to the increase in the upward variation threshold for the local adjustment factor, LAF. Amendment No. 6 concerns a reduction in LPT that is available for homes that have been adapted to make them more suitable for a person with a disability. Section 8 of the Bill as published would allow local authorities to vary LPT upwards by up to 25% from the year 2026 onwards. By amending section 3 in this manner, section 8 will not automatically come into effect on the enactment and commencement of the Bill. Instead, it is intended to commence the provisions of section 8 separately from other LPT provisions at a date agreed between myself and the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage.”
“I move amendment No. 4: In page 3, to delete line 27, and in page 4, to delete lines 1 and 2, and substitute the following: “(a) section 7 ; (b) section 8 ; (c) section 11 .”. This section amends the exemption for properties damaged by the use of defective concrete blocks in their construction as provided for in section 10D of the Finance (Local Property Tax) Act 2012. The purpose of this section is to ensure that exemption is up to date. I am sorry; I have been speaking to the section. I will finish and then speak to the amendment itself. The purpose of this section is to ensure the exemption is up to date, taking account of changes made to the defective concrete block remediation scheme since 2021. Amendment No.”
“I have said that I do not support the rationale for what the Deputy is doing. I do not accept that I have made the argument for him. The Deputy obviously has a different view. I am happy to look at the issue in other ways.”
“The Deputy made reference to the Commission on Taxation and Welfare. I should point out that this commission recommended that we should not do what the Deputy is proposing. It said that "in the case of multiple property owners, a Local Property Tax surcharge should apply to properties not occupied as the principal private residence of the property owner or a registered tenant". The commission did actually look at something like that. I am sorry; I take it back. I am very happy to engage in that debate with the Deputy but, as I have said, I would like to do so in a different way than through a report required by legislation.”
“On the point the Deputy made regarding volatility, I know only too well that, as the Deputy has acknowledged, different revenue streams can be volatile. It is fair to make the point that there are different levels of volatility associated with different tax revenues. The revenue that comes from taxes on assets, things people own, tends to be more stable than revenue collected on things that can change very quickly, like profit. That is the only point I was making. If there was something in my tone or in the way I put my answer to the Deputy that caused him offence, I am sure he will tell me exactly what I did in a moment. All I am trying to do is to be helpful.”
“I do not know why the Deputy went there. I was just saying I am very happy to provide him with the information he requested, which I did, and to outline the rationale for my position on his proposal, as I did. I tried to do so briefly because I think the argument I made is a clear one. I furthermore stated my view that putting a requirement in legislation is not the right way to get reports. I thought I gave a positive answer to the Deputy's queries. I know he knows the difference between an amendment and a report. I assure the Deputy I do too. I was making the point that, if the Deputy wants this information, as I know he does, I will give it to him directly and that there is no need to do it through an amendment. The Deputy can still put an amendment down if he so wishes but there are other ways we can do it and I am happy to do so.”
“I have tried to give the Deputy the answer to the queries he raised in his amendment and to outline the policy rationale as to why we should not bring in differential rates of local property tax based on the number of properties owned by a single person. If he has questions like this he wants answered by my Department or by Revenue, I am more than happy at any point to give him that information directly. We should not use legislation as a way of getting that type of information. If the Deputy has queries regarding property ownership or the implementation of the LPT regime, I will either give him the information directly, making it available to him at any time, or, if he wants it made available more formally, I can do so by way of parliamentary questions.”
“I am advised there are 1.4 million owners of one or two residential properties, 49,000 people who own more than two but fewer than 20 properties, 750 owners of more than 20 but fewer than 50 properties, 186 people who own more than 50 but fewer than 100 properties, and 187 owners of more than 100 properties. The introduction of differential rates of local property tax would have the potential to make the yield from LPT more volatile if the rates of ownership of more than one property change over time. Having a property tax that is applied in a consistent manner across all properties in the State helps to keep the tax base broad and stable. Moreover, differential rates would add an extra layer of complexity to our tax code and could be difficult to implement.”
“I thank the Deputy for making clear his and the Social Democrats' support for the principles underlying local property tax and their support for the value of trying to protect and broaden the tax base. This amendment would require the Minister for Finance to lay a report before the House compiling statistical information on patterns and quantities of residential property ownership and to set out policy options or recommendations regarding the potential introduction of differential rates of LPT on residential properties owned by persons with two or more such properties.”
“He would then say back to me that we could find that money in other ways and I am sure he has ideas in which that could happen. At that point, I would argue to him that the other ways of raising €600 million would have effects that I believe would not be good for our economy or our country in the long run. Those are the points I would make back to the charges and critiques that have been made there. I emphasise again that I know asking people to pay more at a time in which the effect of inflation is still felt will be difficult for many, but we have made significant changes to the local property tax regime for the second time since it was introduced to try to help, at least for some, those increases to be affordable. We are using all of the money that is being collected here to pay for public services that our country wants.”
“Regarding the investment funds, this is an issue the Deputy and I have debated over many years but we have seen that apartment construction decreased very rapidly last year and we need savings, pensions and capital in other parts of the world to play a role in building more apartments in Ireland. That is why we have a taxation structure in place to do that but even with that in place we saw in the second half of last year that the number of new homes, new apartments, that were being built was way below what we know our country needs. On the points Deputy McGrath made regarding the issues in Tipperary, and the very serious issue he raised, I put it back to him and ask if those problems would be any easier to solve if we remove funding from local authorities. That, in effect, is what the abolition of the local property tax would do.”
“However, I made the point, and I will make it again, that Sinn Féin was quite rare among Opposition parties across 2024 and 2025 at a time when inflation was so high that it did not get into Government. There are many different reasons why. I think there are people who understand, and I making the case to them, that the taxes we collect play a very valuable role in funding the public services our country wants. There are no easy answers available regarding how the abolition of the local property tax would be funded. The answers are not easy and we have already had a debate on it. I have made counterarguments to the different points the Deputy has made.”
“We have done that by widening the bands again and by cutting the rate. Deputy Doherty said I was dismissing that. I am not dismissing it for a moment but I am making the point that the additional money we are collecting here will be used on public services that our country wants to see improved. On the point I made regarding people not being convinced by the arguments Deputy Doherty had to be making, I should have made clear that I meant that on a party basis rather than him. Fair play to him, the number of votes he got reflects the passion he has - that he is right to have - the expertise he has and the work he does within his constituency.”
“I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to respond. I never dismissed the fact it will be difficult for some people - indeed for many people - to pay more. Every time I have spoken on this legislation, including this evening, I have acknowledged repeatedly that while the increase over a year is 5% or 6%, which in cash terms for many people will be €20 to €23, for higher value homes it will be more than that. I have acknowledged there are many people for whom that additional amount will be hard to find. I have never dismissed it. The argument I am making is to ask people to pay that bit more each year to allow us to have more money available for the public services they want to see improved. The changes we are making to local property tax here are below the rate of increase in the value of homes in recent years.”
“That is why this legislation is needed and it is why we have made such attempts, by widening the band and reducing the rate, to keep the increases as affordable as possible for those who will face them.”
“I have made the case for many years, and will continue to make it, that the measures Sinn Féin proposes would have effects that would damage our economy and, in turn, affect the jobs we wish to keep in Ireland which allow us to pay for our public services. That is the difference of view and it is one I will continue to make the case for, including in legislation like this. I know the proposed increases we are debating this evening will be difficult for many. We are asking people to pay more at a time when the impact of two years of inflation is still being felt by many. However, if we want to have a way to collect taxes in our country that plays some role in protecting us from what could happen if tax revenues were to change – the global economy could change as well – we need taxes such as the local property tax.”
“Those who stay within a band will pay more but those who end up paying more while staying inside the same band will face an increase of 5%, 6% or 7% on a bill they pay once a year or can spread out across the year. For those in band 5, for example, it means an increase from €499 to €523. I know that is a lot of money for many people, but it is an increase that will pay for the public services our country wants to see improve. Sinn Féin has alternatives but I believe those alternatives will have impacts and consequences that, for example, the people did not accept in the general election last year. The people were not convinced by Sinn Féin's arguments.”
“That €8.4 billion or €8.6 billion is mostly made up of corporate tax receipts which we know could be transitory and could go. In recognition of that risk, we need to ensure we have a tax system that can continue to bring in the revenue needed to pay for public services that matter so much within our country. The Deputy referred to an SNA and a nurse. I refer to the many other public servants who - the Deputy is correct - are paid considerably less than €140,000, not to mention all those in the private sector who also get paid much less than that. I say to them that I know a tax like this is a lot to pay for many but, in recognition of the difficult times many are still in, we have widened the band by 20% and cut the rate. It is why the vast majority of people will not move band.”
“They are choices we differ on. We do not make these decisions because we are trying to protect those on high incomes. We frequently make these decisions because those on high incomes play really important roles leading large organisations which are important to our public services. They perform important public services themselves. With regard to taxation, we already have a very progressive tax code here in Ireland and must be mindful that any decisions we make in respect of asking those on high incomes to pay even more, while I know it can be popular, can have effects on how our country is perceived and on the retention and attraction of jobs and investment in Ireland.”
“We already have one of the most progressive personal tax systems within the OECD. The more a person earns, the higher the level of tax he or she pays, to the degree that we may even have a high degree of reliance on the income tax that higher income earners pay. With regard to consultants, I understand this is a decision on pension amounts. It is a decision on which different Deputies will have different views but, for example, if we wish to retain hospital consultants in our system and keep them working in our public hospitals, I have to accept that an issue raised by some of them is how their pensions are taxed. These are people who provide very important public services our hospitals depend on. It becomes an issue when we need to recruit and retain people to lead really important public service organisations. These are choices.”
“The option is also open to people to pay weekly as opposed to paying it off in a single go. On the choices that are there, to deal with the options put forward by Deputy Doherty, we differ and we will do so respectfully much of the time. On the point he made about the third rate of income tax, the third rate of income tax would be a rate of income tax that we would charge to people who would be high earners, but they are the same high earners who play a valuable role, for example in bringing foreign direct investment to our country. I know it is a difficult argument to make at times but we want Ireland to be competitive. We want to have a country in which large employers want to be, and one of the issues we have to consider for that is having levels of personal taxation that are competitive.”
“It has been deferred in the past, but the further you push out a revaluation of the local property tax, the more difficult that revaluation becomes when you get to doing it. I believe revaluing a tax like this every five years is the right frequency for changing a tax like this, which is still sensitive for so many people.”
“While that will still mean an increase for them, and I acknowledge that, for some, it will be tough to find that additional money, it is a tax that we ask people to pay once a year and all the money that is collected from this goes into public services, many of them on a local level. For those, including Sinn Féin, whose view on the topic I respect, who want to abolish it, €600 million would need to be found. Every time I participate in debates on these kinds of issues in committees, I keep on hearing that we need to expand our tax base, not narrow it. For those reasons, the local property tax is an important tax to keep. Deputy Doherty is right that it is a political decision to vary it every five years.”
“If any future Government were to make a decision to abolish the local property tax, the question is where we would find the further €600 million to take the place of the local property tax revenue that is currently being brought in. Some €600 million is a lot of money to find and would mean choices regarding other things that should not be done, otherwise we would end up either with a smaller surplus or having to make decisions regarding funding public services elsewhere from corporate tax receipts, about which I heard much concern regarding future sustainability at the Committee on Budgetary Oversight yesterday. I accept that some property owners will move band. It is a minority of all who pay the local property tax. The majority of those who pay the local property tax will stay within the band.”
“To put that in context, if somebody is in band 4, he or she would see the property tax bill go up from €405 before this revaluation occurred to €428, a €23 increase. I know for many people a further €23 can be a difficult amount of money to find and it can be a large amount of money, with many of the different changes that are going on, but it is tax that we ask people to pay once across the year. All of the revenue that is being collected here is going to pay for public services. There is a constant demand from our country to see them improve and a constant demand in debates in this House to see those public services, particularly local ones, being delivered in a better way.”
“For those reasons, I do not propose to accept the amendment. To deal with the further points that have been made, I accept that a number of property owners will move in band but, from the modelling that my Department and Revenue have done, we estimate that 94% of people will remain within their existing band. We did a broad model. It is clear that the vast majority of people will remain in their current band. It is the case, to be clear, that even if you are in your current band, you will pay a higher rate of local property tax than there would have been before this revaluation took place. That will be an increase in somebody's local property tax of 5% or 6% compared with where it was before the revaluation occurred.”
“Accordingly, it is equitable that the cost of providing the services should be shared by as broad a spectrum of owners as possible. Revenue estimates that there are approximately 356,000 non-principal private residences nationally. To make up the estimated shortfall of €609 million would mean a non-principal private residence charge would need to be at the rate of €1,700 per property. Abolishing the local property tax and charging it only for non-principal private residences would mean revenue would have to be made up through other forms of taxation which could affect economic activity. Most notably, abolishing the tax for most owners while charging significantly a higher tax on a smaller group of property owners would considerably narrow the tax base and undermine the stability of this important source of local authority funding.”
“Property tax is considered economically efficient as it applies to an asset that is immovable. In contrast, taxes on income and business activities can have different effects on how people behave and what it can mean with regard to our economy. Importantly, local property tax also contributes to the broadening of our tax system, with approximately 2 million properties liable for local property tax, the majority of which are principal private residences. The tax therefore has a broad base, while exemptions are kept to a minimum. All property owners benefit from the essential local services local property tax helps to fund. These include a broad range of services in the public realm which benefit all members of society.”
“I will deal with the amendment first and then respond to some of the points that Deputy Doherty made. The local property tax is an important part of our tax system, which has raised more than €6 billion in revenue since it was introduced in 2013. It has provided vital funding for our local government and local services. The Report of the Commission on Taxation and Welfare, published in 2022, acknowledged that local property tax is a broadly effective system that is well administered. The commission recommended that the current structure and broad features of the tax should remain. This includes keeping exemptions to a minimum and the continued use of regular revaluations. The report also noted that virtually all OECD countries levy some form of a property tax.”
“I therefore do not believe an additional report is necessary and do not propose to accept this amendment. The Deputy asked a further question about the damage threshold. I understand this refers to a pattern of cracks exceeding 1.5 mm. I appreciate that precision means some homes might not qualify for the exemption but I am informed approximately 1,000 homes are in a position to currently claim it.”
“That leads to the answer to the Deputy's question, which is that it is possible homes have been affected by mica but have not met the damage threshold, in which case they would not qualify for the exemption laid out under this scheme. Revenue regularly publishes statistics on the number of claims for an exemption from LPT by category, including for properties accessing an exemption due to qualifying for the defective concrete blocks scheme. In 2024, approximately 1,000 local property exemptions were claimed as a result of homes being constructed using defective concrete blocks. An LPT exemption, once applicable, is in place for six consecutive years. The changes being made as part of the Bill are an extension of the existing exemption. I know Revenue has the capacity to administer and report on this expansion effectively.”
“The Bill seeks to ensure properties located in these additional counties that are eligible for the defective concrete block scheme are also eligible for the LPT exemption. Minor changes are also being made to ensure the properties that qualify under the amended scheme are in a position to avail of the exemption, as well as to ensure those who would have qualified under the previous legislation will continue to do so. Previous confirmation of eligibility for the scheme was given to households but this has since been replaced. Currently, the legislation provides for a damage threshold that has to be met and for the relevant local authority to issue a notification in relation to whether the threshold was met. This Bill will provide a property may be due an exemption if the damage threshold has been met.”
“I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. I thank Deputies, despite the varying views on the legislation, for the opportunity to take the Bill through the Dáil this evening. A six-year exemption from local property tax, LPT, applies to certain properties that have been affected by the use of defective concrete blocks in their construction. The 2021 LPT Act provided that properties eligible for the defective concrete blocks redress scheme could claim this exemption from LPT. The exemption only applies to properties in Donegal and Mayo, as these were the two local authorities covered by the scheme at that point. Since 2021, the scheme has been extended to Clare, Limerick and Sligo local authorities.”
“Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, given this is important legislation and it is happening a little earlier in the evening than might have been anticipated, and in fairness to the Opposition TDs who want to speak on it, if you would be agreeable, could we perhaps suspend to allow them to be here? That is unless Deputy Clarke is dealing with this.”
“When we talk about private capital, all we are talking about is the savings that are held in other parts of the world playing a role in delivering more homes here. Those are some of the key points that emerged from the 24 contributions on the Bill we heard in the past couple of hours. No tax is perfect. There are always drawbacks and criticisms of any tax, but this tax, overall, plays an important role in the funding of local government in our country and the delivery of important services and infrastructure. The Government continues to be very conscious of the challenges of the cost of living and affordability. With the changes we are making, we aim to recognise the challenges that many are facing.”
“While I have heard criticism about the operation of the equalisation fund and the fact that local authorities should be able to keep more of the money that is collected at local level for local use - I heard that point being made by many - it is still important to emphasise that all of the local property tax that is collected is used to fund public services either at local or national level. Sixth, I heard the criticism again of investment funds - the so-called vulture funds. Those who make that charge - and this is a debate in which I have participated over many years - appear to suggest that there should be no role for private capital in the funding of new homes in our country.”
“However, the value of a home when this tax is revalued is a very credible effort on the Government’s part to examine how we can ensure the amount of the local property tax charged relates to the income somebody may have. We know that can break down at times because, as some Deputies stated, the value of a property does not correlate to income. That is the reason why we have waivers in place. Fifth, I heard criticism of the operation of the tax and, in particular, the operation and maintenance of the equalisation fund. I want to make the point again that every euro that is collected in this tax goes back to the payment of public services at either local or national level.”