The Old and the New: A Tale of Two Local Property Taxes in Ireland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Property taxes are common in countries around the world. While Ireland is no exception in its current tax treatment of real property, the background to its local taxes on non-residential and residential properties is unusual in that the former dates back more than 400 years while the latter, at least in its current configuration, has been in existence for less than 10 years. This research paper outlines the rationale, history, features, and administration of commercial rates (the “old”) and the residential Local Property Tax (the “new”). The purpose is to highlight, from a political economy and public policy perspective, improvements in the design and implementation of both taxes. While both taxes have some common features, the Local Property Tax has a number of unusual characteristics, including self assessment and valuation bands. While recognizing country-specific circumstances, the paper draws potential lessons from the Irish experience, identifies future opportunities, and explores challenges for policymakers. The Local Property Tax experience shows the importance of tax administration and the role of the central tax collection agency, and, in terms of design, the principle of simplicity combined with a tailored approach to suit local circumstances. Challenges include the relative tax burdens on non-residential and residential properties, the long-term sustainability of both tax regimes arising from legacy issues, the effects of current global trends and future revaluations, and, finally, the need for frequent property tax reform because of political and taxpayers’ opposition to a highly visible, unpopular, but good local tax.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".