Septic tank charges

ednwireland · 28-03-2012 8:20am

meglome wrote: »

. No amount of righteous indignation or tax evasion will change the shíte we're in. Only tax increases, austerity, efficiencies and growth will do that. I personally wouldn't want to be the one having to balance those.

please tell me why enda gave one of his advisors a 35k payrise if austerity and efficiencies are so important, theres 350 household charges right there

raising taxes and charges will just continue to pump money into aour civil servic entitlement black hole

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/taoiseach-breaches-govts-salary-cap-for-special-advisors--report-530842.html

oscarBravo · 28-03-2012 9:37am

ednwireland wrote: »

raising taxes and charges will just continue to pump money into aour civil servic entitlement black hole

And tax evasion will do what, exactly, to fix it?

meglome · 28-03-2012 9:57am

ednwireland wrote: »

please tell me why enda gave one of his advisors a 35k payrise if austerity and efficiencies are so important, theres 350 household charges right there

raising taxes and charges will just continue to pump money into aour civil servic entitlement black hole

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/taoiseach-breaches-govts-salary-cap-for-special-advisors--report-530842.html

Not sure why you're directing that at me. I've just said above there will need to be austerity and efficiencies amongst other things. Is anyone disagreeing that the government needs to be more efficient and most cost effective?

Now if we knock that 35k off the 14 billion we now only need another 13,999,965,000.

ednwireland · 28-03-2012 10:10am

meglome wrote: »

Not sure why you're directing that at me. I've just said above there will need to be austerity and efficiencies amongst other things. Is anyone disagreeing that the government needs to be more efficient and most cost effective?

Now if we knock that 35k off the 14 billion we now only need another 13,999,965,000.

still 35k less than before though (i actually dont disagree with houshold charges and septic tank inspections) BUT what this gov. has singularly done is take all the easy decisions (taxing people) and not reducing gov spending

annf · 28-03-2012 11:13am

The issue has been taken up by a new Irish intergenerational human rights initiative - IHRI, at ectopia.org, which Europe seems to approve of. Please have at look and join in if you wish.

Farmer Pudsey · 28-03-2012 11:15pm

meglome wrote: »

See this confuses me. It makes it sound like this 'crap' we're taking wasn't of our own making by repeatedly voting for a corrupt and inept Fianna Fail government.

We can dance around the issue all night but here is the reality... we are spending 14 billion more than we have this year alone. Only 5% of that is going towards bank debt. That 14 billion is being borrowed, and if we pay the 3.1 billion in promissory notes that will be borrowed too. No amount of righteous indignation or tax evasion will change the shíte we're in. Only tax increases, austerity, efficiencies and growth will do that. I personally wouldn't want to be the one having to balance those.

speak for your self Tonto when you refer about voting for a corrupt FF government over 55% of the people never voted for FF and Noticed that in your mention of tax increases, austerity, efficiencies and growth you never mentioned cost cutting tax increase's and austerity have failed as neither is bringing in extra taxes people fail to understand if I have to give the government a tenner extra I have to take it off of spending else where. We need growth and cost cutting however it will not happen as I said earlier about broken promised Croke Park is untouchable, dole payment are untouchable, we have over 800 quango's in Ireland in GB which has a population ten times the size they have about 400. There is something rotten about this country and it is time to say stop

antoobrien · 29-03-2012 10:13am

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

you never mentioned cost cutting tax increase's and austerity have failed

VAT receipts
2008 - €13.42 billion
2009 - €10.67 billion (800m directly due to the crash stop in the construction industry)
2010 - €10.1 billion (further 50m reduction in VAT from construction)
2011 - €9.74 billion

Since 2009, there las been less than a 1 billion fall in vat receipts - even after the "austerity" we've seen. That tells me we haven't seen austerity yet because VAT should have fallen off a cliff since 2009. The fall in 2008 can be largely (but not exclusively) be attributed to the construction industry stopping suddenly - fully 1/3 of the reduction in VAT receipts were directly due to that. Throw in the spending power of the people that lost their jobs in 2008 & 2009, VAT goes down.

The surprising thing is that spending is largely holding up. A 1 billion vat drop roughly equates to a 5 billion drop in consumer spending (we've had more than 12 billion in budget cuts since 2009).

That tells me what we are actually seeing is people reducing (or stopping) buying on credit (cards, loans etc) and buying what they can afford to buy.

later12 · 29-03-2012 11:27am

I think you're overlooking the behaviour of businesses in mitigating potential VAT shortfalls during a period of austerity.

Retail sales can have a strong capacity to respond well to price cuts, particularly at the start of a recession. If the percentage increase in demand mitigates (or is greater than) the percentage fall in retail price, then total revenues will be more unscathed (or will increase) so long as consumer demand is elastic. I'm sure we all remember the ubiquitous Sale signs that featured heavily around Dublin for a long time after recession struck, and the substitution of regular consumer items with value sized items.

So the immediate brunt of austerity may be borne by businesses who react to maintain their total revenue, and who pass the effects of austerity to the taxpayer in an alternative way, e.g. letting staff go. So the transmission of austerity may be rather indirect, and not necessarily accurately detected in Vat returns or even the Retail Sales Index.

Farmer Pudsey · 29-03-2012 11:40am

antoobrien wrote: »

VAT receipts
2008 - €13.42 billion
2009 - €10.67 billion (800m directly due to the crash stop in the construction industry)
2010 - €10.1 billion (further 50m reduction in VAT from construction)
2011 - €9.74 billion

Since 2009, there las been less than a 1 billion fall in vat receipts - even after the "austerity" we've seen. That tells me we haven't seen austerity yet because VAT should have fallen off a cliff since 2009. The fall in 2008 can be largely (but not exclusively) be attributed to the construction industry stopping suddenly - fully 1/3 of the reduction in VAT receipts were directly due to that. Throw in the spending power of the people that lost their jobs in 2008 & 2009, VAT goes down.

The surprising thing is that spending is largely holding up. A 1 billion vat drop roughly equates to a 5 billion drop in consumer spending (we've had more than 12 billion in budget cuts since 2009).

That tells me what we are actually seeing is people reducing (or stopping) buying on credit (cards, loans etc) and buying what they can afford to buy.

There are two VAT rates most of the construction sector was rated at 13.5% this also include's all labour intensive industry, car maintenance, hair& beauty salons, resturants, hotels etc the previous high rate was 21% now these work out at nearly 12% and over 17 % of total spend let take an average half way 15% to be the average vat reciept pre 2008 as we have had a massive drop in employment this gives a multiplier of 6.6 the vat reduction was 3.69 billion which leave us with a spending drop og 24.5 billion also we will know soon but the indication are that the 2% hike in vat along with the hike in duty on fuel, cigs are not bringing in the amount of extra revenue they were supposed to

antoobrien · 29-03-2012 11:49am

later12 wrote: »

I think you're overlooking the behaviour of businesses in mitigating potential VAT shortfalls during a period of austerity.

Given that the consumer is the ultimate payer of all vat, not really no. You're failing to account for the fact that about €3 billion in VAT is refunded to business every year and that fact that there are a few sectors that are net recipients of vat.

Annual volume and prices drops of about 1%, when you consider the announced budget cuts, are really small.

Plus the fact that retail, hotels, restaurants actually reported rises in vat takes between 2009 & 2010 (2011 breakdown not available yet, so this wont account for the reduction in the lower vat rate on services) it indicates that consumer spending is reasonably steady.

later12 · 29-03-2012 12:29pm

But I'm not saying that. I'm saying that looking at aggregates like Vat returns may be missing changes in elastic consumer and supplier behaviours.

antoobrien wrote: »

Annual volume and prices drops of about 1%, when you consider the announced budget cuts, are really small.

Except it's been an average of -6.3% and -4.8% respecitvely for values and volumes since 2008.

All those businesses closing down? All this unemployment? We're not making it up, you know...

29-03-2012 12:59pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

And tax evasion will do what, exactly, to fix it?

well here is something people may not have thought about......tax evasion can be good for the economy. It boils down to who spends the money most efficiently. The govt will take the money and bail out banks or pay high wages or welfare payments such as rent allowance that keep Ireland uncompetitive and the cost of living higher than it should be.

If the general populace spent the money in a more economically beneficial way than that then yes tax evasion would boost the economy helping us to grow (out of our debts)

haha!

n97 mini · 29-03-2012 1:40pm

From the 2011 Census. Huge amounts of one-offs (>75%) in some areas of the country. Follows that these are the properties most likely to have a septic tank.

I have to admit that the proportion of one-offs is far greater than I thought.

antoobrien · 29-03-2012 1:56pm

n97 mini wrote: »

From the 2011 Census. Huge amounts of one-offs (>75%) in some areas of the country. Follows that these are the properties most likely to have a septic tank.

I have to admit that the proportion of one-offs is far greater than I thought.

Any chance of some numbers there, after all there are about 60,000 households in Co Galway (excluding the city), I'd expect over 75% of them to have sewage tanks because the majority of them wouldn't be near a sewage scheme. Not to mention the fact that a lot of villages that have grown up would not necessarily have a group sewage scheme.

OssianSmyth · 29-03-2012 2:38pm

There are 410,523 one-off households (25% of all households in Ireland)
60% of Galway houses are one-offs

The new housing alternatives to one-offs weren't much better: village suburbia and shoebox apartments.

Tipp Man · 29-03-2012 2:44pm

n97 mini wrote: »

From the 2011 Census. Huge amounts of one-offs (>75%) in some areas of the country. Follows that these are the properties most likely to have a septic tank.

I have to admit that the proportion of one-offs is far greater than I thought.

The map doesn't really mean anything without the number of houses in it.

For example North West Mayo shows 100% but does that could be 10 houses, 100 houses or 10,000 houses

What it shows is that rural areas have predominantly 1 off housing which is to be expected

antoobrien · 29-03-2012 2:49pm

OssianSmyth wrote: »

There are 410,523 one-off households (25% of all households in Ireland)
60% of Galway houses are one-offs

Which table did you get that figure from?

OssianSmyth · 29-03-2012 3:42pm

antoobrien wrote: »

Which table did you get that figure from?

p.46 of
http://cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011pdr/Census%202011%20Highlights%20Part%201.pdf

Ogham · 30-03-2012 2:09pm

Breakdown of sewage connections according to Census 2011

All types of sewerage 1,649,408
Public scheme 1,092,418
Individual septic tank 437,652
Individual treatment not septic tank 50,259
Other type of sewage 9,370
No sewerage facility 2,555
Not stated 57,154

So - those needing to register could be as much as 556,990 (Total less Public Sewer)

MadsL · 02-04-2012 5:31am

n97 mini wrote: »

No better image to convey the abject failure of planning in this country....

oscarBravo · 02-04-2012 2:13pm

MadsL wrote: »

No better image to convey the abject failure of planning in this country....

Well, no. From my reading of the map, towns like Castlebar have the same percentage range of one-off housing as the major metropolitan areas, whereas EDs in Erris and the like have a higher percentage of one-off housing.

Unless you think there's a case to be made for 75% of homes in Erris to be in housing estates or apartment blocks, it's not that severe an indictment in and of itself.

Godge · 02-04-2012 2:36pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, no. From my reading of the map, towns like Castlebar have the same percentage range of one-off housing as the major metropolitan areas, whereas EDs in Erris and the like have a higher percentage of one-off housing.

Unless you think there's a case to be made for 75% of homes in Erris to be in housing estates or apartment blocks, it's not that severe an indictment in and of itself.

Correct. You would never get permission to build a housing estate within the boundaries of say Killarney National Park so the figure will be 100% one-off houses whether it is one house or 4,000 houses within the boundaries of the park. From a planning and environmental point of view, the 100% would tell you nothing.

recedite · 02-04-2012 3:40pm

The indictment is that there are so many "one off houses". The majority of these are not farmers, they are typically families spread out around the countryside on one acre sites. They don't particularly want to have half an acre or more of lawns to mow every weekend, but they get a better house for the same money compared to buying one in an urban styled estate from a developer.

An older traditional settlement pattern was for rural people to live in small clusters of houses called clocháns, with some residents farming the surrounding land, and some having a trade. A modern equivalent would be an eco-village.
Whether or not that pattern can be described as one-off housing is open to question I suppose; one of the problems of using ambiguous language in the census.

oscarBravo · 02-04-2012 3:50pm

recedite wrote: »

The indictment is that there are so many "one off houses".

There is no data whatsoever on that map as to the number of one-off houses; only the percentage of one-off houses. That's why it's not the indictment you and MadSL believe it to be.

That's not to say that there isn't a problem - simply that that map doesn't indicate it.

recedite · 02-04-2012 4:23pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

There is no data whatsoever on that map as to the number of one-off houses; only the percentage

We don't need to know the number, if you are willing to accept that good planning would engineer the development of clustered housing patterns, as opposed to dispersed housing.

oscarBravo · 02-04-2012 4:29pm

recedite wrote: »

We don't need to know the number, if you are willing to accept that good planning would engineer the development of clustered housing patterns, as opposed to dispersed housing.

If your argument is that 75% of houses in any given electoral division must be built in clusters - even if there are only a handful of houses in that ED, and even if the requirement for housing in that ED doesn't lend itself to clustered development - then no, I don't agree with you.

If you are making the case that there is too much one-off development in this country, I'll agree with that - but the map doesn't make that case for you, and no amount of wishful thinking will make it do so.

MadsL · 02-04-2012 4:55pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

There is no data whatsoever on that map as to the number of one-off houses; only the percentage of one-off houses. That's why it's not the indictment you and MadSL believe it to be.

No, fair enough, its an odd way of expressing the data...

That's not to say that there isn't a problem - simply that that map doesn't indicate it.

A better indication is the geographical location of the new addresses registered with An Post that shows the 'measles' effect quite clearly. This data 2005-2007. Sorry it is huge but it is clearer that way.

[IMG][/img]

Thargor · 05-06-2012 9:07pm

Where do you register to pay the €5 septic tank charge? Sorry but I have Googled and theres nothing...

recedite · 05-06-2012 9:39pm

Your local county council (if they have it organised).
The cheap rate was supposed to be for for a limited time only BTW.

Thargor · 05-06-2012 9:46pm

I thought it hadn't started yet because of delays and the 3 month time limit would only start when they actually made it possible to pay, ridiculous that this information isnt being made available easily.

See the last 2 comments on this page:

http://www.moneyguideireland.com/septic-tank-registration-charges.html

Septic tank charges

Comments