Bin charge protests and breastfeeding

Boston

I said i can understand the need, not saying you should pay it just because your rural, i mean its pretty ****ing stupid when you think about it. Rubbish collecting costs go up to 700 pa and ilegal dumping suddenly becomes a major problem, but no one cares because of where it is, i think people will start to care when tones of rubbish get dumped on dublin streets every day, believe we it will happen.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Sparks
How many times, RainyDay? Total tax revenue has increased by a very large amount since the days of 55% tax. VAT, VRT and a slew of other indirect taxes haven't been subjected to the cuts that direct tax has. Instead, VAT's catchment area has been expanded while FF shout as loudly as they can that direct tax has fallen.

Show me the data! Please, please, please gimme just one, single, verifiable number that supports this position.

Originally posted by Sparks

The end result though, is that you have less effective cash in pocket at the end of the day. Or did you think that it was more expensive to live in Dublin than in St.Tropez because we have better weather?

The level of effective cash in your pocket is affected by a huge number of other things, not just direct/indirect taxation, e.g. inflation, dollar/euro rates, US economy, Sept 11, your salary, national wage agreements, Nick Leeson ripping off banks in the Far East etc etc. Your position now seems to have moved to say we can't have bin charges because the cost of living has gone up.

Sparks

Originally posted by oscarBravo
No offence, Sparks, but you don't seem to understand how government works. The job of the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, is to implement the law as it currently exists, whether common or legislative. The function of government is to create legislation. There is no reason why legislation should be in line with previous Supreme Court judgements; in fact it is often the case that legislation is implemented as a result of court verdicts.

OB, you're merrily ignoring the point there. The "Protection of the Environment Bill 2002" was written specifically to overrule the supreme court on the local authority charges case. That's not a case of "running the country better", it's a case of taking a supreme court ruling that had been in the best interests of the people, and deliberately and undemocratically overruling it. And it's not that this bill was necessary to permit the council more authority - they already had the authority to take people to court over nonpayment. The ruling laid out what was regarded as an essential service that local authorities had to provide. By overruling it, the government was not making things better, but taking a large step backwards. The bill was criticised in Dail and Seanad as unjust and an abuse of the government's majority from the moment it was introduced.

You seem to be under the impression that legislation should be bound by common law, whereas in fact it is bound by the Constitution.

Actually, I'm more under the impression that the FF government decided that it didn't matter what the people thought, that they wanted things done their way, and when the supreme court pointed out that the law was on the side of the bin tax protestors, the government waited till after the election and then as one of the first things it did, changed the law.
That's not democratic government - it's underhanded corruption.

Imposter

Originally posted by Sparks
Actually, I'm more under the impression that the FF government decided that it didn't matter what the people thought, that they wanted things done their way...

At last a reason that can be substantiated with a bit of fact.

As for whoever mentioned the people that can't afford to pay, surely they can claim the tax-relief (incentive... pick your own word) on it!

RainyDay

Originally posted by Sparks
it's a case of taking a supreme court ruling that had been in the best interests of the people, and deliberately and undemocratically overruling it. [...]
That's not democratic government - it's underhanded corruption.

It takes a lot to turn me into a defender of FF, but here goes.
Can you be more specific about why either of these decisions were undemocratic? FF have been clearly & publically in favour of waste charges for both the last general & local elections. So I don't see anything undemocratic about their decisions. In fact, the actions of a small number of demonstrators blocking the collection of waste from entire swathes of the city are demonstrable far more undemocratic than anything FF have done.

Sparks

Originally posted by RainyDay
Show me the data! Please, please, please gimme just one, single, verifiable number that supports this position.

You'll have to wait a short while, finance.gov.ie is currently off the air

Your position now seems to have moved to say we can't have bin charges because the cost of living has gone up.

No, it hasn't. I'm tempted to ask for a new debate rule that you're not allowed bring up an ancillary point, let someone respond to it and then say that their original argument is bogus because of their response to your off-topic point.

i.e. I'm not the one that brought up the indirect/direct tax point, that was in response to someone saying "oh, but taxes are down", (which is incorrect because it fails to take indirect tax into account). So if I'm arguing that point with them, don't take that as being an argument on the original topic.

I mean, I thought I was being rather clear on the topic of why the bin taxes are being protested...

At last a reason that can be substantiated with a bit of fact.

Now that's incorrect too. I've not yet said anything that wasn't substantiated. Mind you, I am noticing that so far noone on the anti-protestor side has put forward any statistics or facts pertaining to the discussion, but, as usual, they're quite happy to call for statistics from those that think that the FF/PD brigade are wrong...
Y'know, if I didn't know better, I'd be yelling "spin"...

As for whoever mentioned the people that can't afford to pay, surely they can claim the tax-relief (incentive... pick your own word) on it!

Ah, now see? This is what I mean. You're happy to point to the tax-relief scheme and say "see? no excuse for not paying your bin tax!", while happily ignoring highly relevant points that have been brought up more than once about that scheme - namely that it is incomplete, doesn't cover the costs, and those that "can't afford to pay" don't get to use it anyway because they don't pay the tax to get the credits on in the first place. They get a "waiver scheme" instead, and that's not even a waiver scheme to begin with, because it consists of a discount, not a waiver.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Sparks
They get a "waiver scheme" instead, and that's not even a waiver scheme to begin with, because it consists of a discount, not a waiver.

More fiction - Fingal's waiver scheme gives 26 bin tags to qualifying households free of charge.
Dubllin City Council's waiver scheme offers "Full exemptions will be granted to applicants whose only income is a Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs allowance or pension. People on low income may also qualify"

IgnatiusJRiley

Originally posted by Boston
i think people will start to care when tones of rubbish get dumped on dublin streets every day, believe we it will happen.

So now you're going to hold us all to ransom like a bunch of low-life thugs?

Sparks

Originally posted by RainyDay
More fiction

Not only is it not fiction (for a start there's that "may be granted" bit in the Dublin wiaver scheme and Fingal's isn't suitable for large families on the dole, thanks), but you're the one saying that FF aren't being underhanded and that they've been all upfront about their plans with regard to the environment bill, when in fact no mention whatsoever of their planned legislation went into the Program for Government document.

But hey - obviously we need to give you leeway, right? After all, you're posting all those correct facts and figures, aren't you?
:rolleyes:

So now you're going to hold us all to ransom like a bunch of low-life thugs?

And when exactly did protestors become low-life thugs? When they bothered your sensibilities?
Besides, it would beat the current situation, with all of us held to ransom by high-life thugs...

IgnatiusJRiley

Originally posted by Sparks

And when exactly did protestors become low-life thugs? When they bothered your sensibilities?

When they gleefully proclaimed the streets would be covered in (more) litter

Imposter

Originally posted by Sparks
I've not yet said anything that wasn't substantiated. Mind you, I am noticing that so far noone on the anti-protestor side has put forward any statistics or facts pertaining to the discussion, but, as usual, they're quite happy to call for statistics from those that think that the FF/PD brigade are wrong...
Y'know, if I didn't know better, I'd be yelling "spin"...

I don't think anyone (until you brought it up) was discussing FF/PD's here. I think the discussion is about the charges, whether they're legal or whether the protesters just don't want to pay them.

Showing us where exactly people have already paid this tax would go a long way towards substatiating your argument. As yet you've said it's because the services existed before so therefore they come from the normal tax take. But as has been pointed out this is not the case in the majority of the country. You also stated that the tax-relief system implies the tax was paid already. This has been counteracted by the rent allowance argument which you've ignored.

Ah, now see? This is what I mean. You're happy to point to the tax-relief scheme and say "see? no excuse for not paying your bin tax!", while happily ignoring highly relevant points that have been brought up more than once about that scheme - namely that it is incomplete, doesn't cover the costs, and those that "can't afford to pay" don't get to use it anyway because they don't pay the tax to get the credits on in the first place. They get a "waiver scheme" instead, and that's not even a waiver scheme to begin with, because it consists of a discount, not a waiver. [/B]

Rainyday addressed the point about people who can't pay (with facts). Can you explain you point that it's incomplete?

Sparks

Originally posted by Imposter
I don't think anyone (until you brought it up) was discussing FF/PD's here. I think the discussion is about the charges, whether they're legal or whether the protesters just don't want to pay them.

Actually Imposter, you just pointed out where the FF/PDs entered the discussion. The collection of waste was a legal necessity for councils until the FF/PD government changed the legislation in a cynical and underhanded move, and that's why we're seeing protests now.

Showing us where exactly people have already paid this tax would go a long way towards substatiating your argument.

Check your payslip lately? See that "PAYE" entry? There you go...

As yet you've said it's because the services existed before so therefore they come from the normal tax take. But as has been pointed out this is not the case in the majority of the country.

This was Cork's "pointing out", no? The same way he "pointed out" that there never was a problem outside of dublin, despite cork being where the 2001 supreme court case originated from?
:rolleyes:

This has been counteracted by the rent allowance argument which you've ignored.

Rent allowance is not the same as a tax relief on local authority charges. I would have thought that rather obvious myself...

Rainyday addressed the point about people who can't pay (with facts). Can you explain you point that it's incomplete?

Actually he didn't, his "facts" were wrong. And I explained the incomplete point twice in this thread already. Go read the thread please.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Sparks
Not only is it not fiction (for a start there's that "may be granted" bit in the Dublin wiaver scheme and Fingal's isn't suitable for large families on the dole, thanks)

So just to be clear, are you saying that you accept that your comments about it being a discount & not a waiver were incorrect?

Let's be clear that the 'may be granted' applies to low income households. There is no 'maybe' about granting the waiver to households with only social welfare income.

And you are really telling me that a large family on the dole can't manage to reduce/reuse/recycle enough of their waste to get down to one tag every two weeks?

Originally posted by Sparks
but you're the one saying that FF aren't being underhanded and that they've been all upfront about their plans with regard to the environment bill

No - I didn't - I said that they weren't being undemocratic - a point you have chosen to ignore so far.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Rent allowance is not the same as a tax relief on local authority charges. I would have thought that rather obvious myself...

So the Revenue Commissioners are wrong when they refer to it as "tax relief on private rented accommodation"?

Sparks

Originally posted by RainyDay
So just to be clear, are you saying that you accept that your comments about it being a discount & not a waiver were incorrect?

Just to be clear, no I do not accept that. Firstly because you picked only two of the county councils, and secondly because even when cherry-picking, you couldn't find a true waiver scheme, just a partial discount.

And you are really telling me that a large family on the dole can't manage to reduce/reuse/recycle enough of their waste to get down to one tag every two weeks?

And you're telling me that they can? Really? Have a large family, do you?
:rolleyes:

No - I didn't - I said that they weren't being undemocratic - a point you have chosen to ignore so far.

If you're going to forget your own posts so fast, I'll have to remind you I guess:

Originally posted by RainyDay
Can you be more specific about why either of these decisions were undemocratic? FF have been clearly & publically in favour of waste charges for both the last general & local elections. So I don't see anything undemocratic about their decisions.

And as it happens, they are being undemocratic in that they're using their majority within the dail to force through legislation that the majority of the people outside the dail don't agree with.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
And as it happens, they are being undemocratic in that they're using their majority within the dail to force through legislation that the majority of the people outside the dail don't agree with.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy

Craptacular

I object to the bin charges for a couple of simple reasons. They do nothing to encourage people to tackle the waste problem, they tax the wrong end of the waste chain and the money raised is not being used for the purpose for which the charges were introduced.

Charging an annual rate or a per bag charge does not encourage reduction or recycling. It's a bit like the plans to build an incinerator. An incinerator is a symbol of our failure to tackle our waste problem and not a solution to it. The current bin tax, in most areas, is an opportunity to cash in on the waste problem and does nothing to solve it. Only pay by weight can do this. This is due to be introduced in the future and when it is introduced I'll reconsider paying depending on the other two issues.

90% of my waste which would otherwise go to landfill is recycled. This is done by me sorting it and then either composting or getting off my ass and taking it to a bring centre myself. The remaining 10% cannot be recycled and I am being taxed for this 10% but I have no control over this 10%. I do not get to pick and choose what packaging materials are used. When I have the option I can take a recyclable carton or bottle over a non recyclable alternative but I do not always have the option. The producers of non-recyclable packaging and those who package using non-recyclable material should be charged for the disposal of their produce/packaging. There is no reason for this not to be done in conjunction with a pay by weight bin charge and the two together would cut down on the amount going to landfill. At the moment only I get charged though I am the opposite end of the chain from where the waste is produced.

The bin charges were supposed to raise money to fund recycling schemes and other programmes to tackle the waste problem. When Fingal first introduced it and people objected they announced that they would not be able to build X number of houses because they did not have the cash from the bin charges. That is not what the money was for. When it is ringfenced and used for it's original purpose only I will happily pay it but when it is used for other reasons it is just another excuse for the County Council to dip into my pockets to cover their own financial incompetence.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Sparks
And as it happens, they are being undemocratic in that they're using their majority within the dail to force through legislation that the majority of the people outside the dail don't agree with.

That's a cracker - It has really made my day. I was in a really bad mood earlier after a dispute with a colleague, but this has cheered me up immensly. Thanks so much.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Craptacular

The remaining 10% cannot be recycled and I am being taxed for this 10% but I have no control over this 10%. I do not get to pick and choose what packaging materials are used. When I have the option I can take a recyclable carton or bottle over a non recyclable alternative but I do not always have the option. The producers of non-recyclable packaging and those who package using non-recyclable material should be charged for the disposal of their produce/packaging.

Of course, you have an option. You, the consumer, decides which product to take off the shelf - the carrots in polystene package wrapped in cling film, or the loose carrots. It is your choice.

Pushing the charges back up the chain to the producers might sound like a nice idea, but they will just get passed right the way back down the chain to the consumer via increased prices.

I agree that pay-by-weight or volume is definitely the best option, but it is no reason to 'sulk' & withold your money (which will actually make it more difficult for the council to invest in the necessary techology to implement pay-by-weight).

Sparks

Originally posted by RainyDay
That's a cracker - It has really made my day. I was in a really bad mood earlier after a dispute with a colleague, but this has cheered me up immensly. Thanks so much.

I'm glad to see that basic math cheers you up so much.
Personally, knowing that 41.5% of 63% is less than a majority doesn't seem so enlightening to me, but hey, what would I know?

Craptacular

Originally posted by RainyDay
Of course, you have an option. You, the consumer, decides which product to take off the shelf - the carrots in polystene package wrapped in cling film, or the loose carrots. It is your choice

The point is that I don't have an option in every case. Toothbrushes tend to come wrapped in a plastic bubble with a cardboard backing. I can recycle the backing but not the plastic bubble, same goes for most batteries. Bring centres will not accept yoghurt containers or light bulbs.

If it was merely a case of choosing recyclable packaging I would have almost 0 waste.

Originally posted by RainyDay
I agree that pay-by-weight or volume is definitely the best option, but it is no reason to 'sulk' & withold your money

It's not a case of sulking. It's a case of refusing to pay for a sub standard service which fails to do the job.

Tito

The big problem here is Dubs think they can get away with not paying like every other county does and highlights the problem with politics,media etc if does not happen in Dublin it is not worth talking about and the assumption for some reason that people can get away without paying like the rest of the country and stoping bin lorry's from collecting people rubbish who are willing to pay is undemocratic.
Shame on them

Sparks

Originally posted by Tito
The big problem here is Dubs think they can get away with not paying like every other county does and highlights the problem with politics,media etc if does not happen in Dublin it is not worth talking about and the assumption for some reason that people can get away without paying like the rest of the country and stoping bin lorry's from collecting people rubbish who are willing to pay is undemocratic.
Shame on them

Wrong Tito. Firstly, Dublin's in the limelight - but it was Cork that went to the supreme court last time. Think of it as this being dublin's turn, if that makes you feel any better. There are other areas round the country that were protesting prior to the 2001 supreme court ruling. Dublin's just getting more airtime now.

Imposter

Originally posted by Sparks
Check your payslip lately? See that "PAYE" entry? There you go...

It doesn't mention refuse charges or local authority charges or anything to that effect (just like everything else, like health, public transport etc.. before you start)

Can you show me some local authority or central government document that states the money given to the Councils and local authorities is to be used for A, B, C and refuse collection?

This was Cork's "pointing out", no? The same way he "pointed out" that there never was a problem outside of dublin, despite cork being where the 2001 supreme court case originated from?

Ok Cork was wrong on part of what he said but other counties (not just cork and dublin) have refuse charges.

Rent allowance is not the same as a tax relief on local authority charges. I would have thought that rather obvious myself...

Noone ever said it was the same thing. It was used to counteract your point that because the relief exists it is an admission by the government that they are required to provide this service.

... And I explained the incomplete point twice in this thread already...

Well obvoiusly it made no sense then and still doesn't!

Craptacular

Tito I think the problem is that much of the rest of the country are happily paying an annual rate which allows people to profit from our waste problem instead of tackling it. Luckily the clever people in Dublin spotted the flaw in the policy and stood up to. Where would you be without us.

IgnatiusJRiley

Originally posted by Craptacular
Luckily the clever people in Dublin spotted the flaw in the policy and stood up to.

LOL LOL LOL:p The clever people of dublin eh... nah better not get into that one.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Craptacular
The point is that I don't have an option in every case. Toothbrushes tend to come wrapped in a plastic bubble with a cardboard backing. I can recycle the backing but not the plastic bubble,

You still have an option - Don't use a toothbrush - Use a twig from the garden instead. Or if you are really attached to your toothbrush, have you expressed your views clearly to the retailer and/or the manufacturer so that there is some possibility that they might actually change?

Originally posted by Craptacular
It's not a case of sulking. It's a case of refusing to pay for a sub standard service which fails to do the job.,

Well, who died and made you City Manager? It's the law - just pay the damn charge. If I put up a good arguement for why I need to rob your DVD player to feed my herion habit, will you respect my rights there?

Clinical Waste

Originally posted by BrianD3
I heard in the news today that some Dublin bin charges protestors have been sent to jail. 9 people were given 2 week sentences and the 10th was given 1 week. Why the shorter sentence? The reason appears to be because she is a breastfeeding mother.

Am I the only one who finds this judgement a disgrace? Seems to be a very obvious example of how women can play the sympathy card when it suits them and receive preferential treatement, yet demand equal treatment at other times, again when it suits them. Funnily enough, the judge in this case was also a woman.....

I'm just wondering - was this protestor breastfeeding her child while she was taking part in blockades of bin lorries? :rolleyes: Anyway, for a mother with very young children to be putting herself in the situation where she could go to jail is particularly stupid and irresponsible.

From RTE's aertel service

This kid is 2 years old.
Maybe she wanted to go to prison so as to ween him off breast milk !?!

Craptacular

Originally posted by RainyDay
You still have an option - Don't use a toothbrush - Use a twig from the garden instead. Or if you are really attached to your toothbrush, have you expressed your views clearly to the retailer and/or the manufacturer so that there is some possibility that they might actually change?

I think you are deliberately missing the point so that you can avoid admitting that I'm right. If our government were serious about the waste issue they would be tackling it at source. Instead they are looking to cash in on it.

Originally posted by RainyDay
Well, who died and made you City Manager? It's the law - just pay the damn charge. If I put up a good arguement for why I need to rob your DVD player to feed my herion habit, will you respect my rights there?

There's a bit of a difference there. I was told that the waste charges would be used for certain reasons. Now that they are there it is obvious that these reasons were a smokescreen to introduce a new source of revenue for the local authority. They lied to me and I refuse to pay until they stick with what they originally said. There are elections in June and I'll have my say there. I'm not looking to be city manager or even a county councillor. I, along with everyone else who votes, appoint others to do that and I will appoint the person who most represents my views on this matter.

If the council have a real issue with me not paying then they can seek to have me prosecuted under the law and I'll have my say in court.

Imposter

Originally posted by Craptacular
If the council have a real issue with me not paying then they can seek to have me prosecuted under the law and I'll have my say in court.

Can you bring Sparks with you?:D