Bin charge protests and breastfeeding

Villain

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?

That post Rainyday doesn't make much sense, no one is robbing anyone here, people are simply looking for the well funded local authorities to collect their rubbish.

If anyone is doing the robbing it's the government with their double taxation.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Sparks
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.

I'm not ignoring that point; that is my point! One of the functions of government is to create legislation for the specific purpose of overriding Supreme Court decisions.

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.

Supreme Court rulings aren't made "in the best interests of the people," they are made in accordance with the law currently in force. I thought you had an education in law?

The determination as to what is and is not in the interests of the people is made by the democratically elected government. I accept that you disagree with the government's policies - that's your right, and I'll vehemently defend it - but please, please stop trying to take a policy issue and turn it into a spurious legal one.

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 question of whether things are "better" or "worse" is a policy decision. If, as you assert, the majority of the people are in disagreement with the government's policies, then the government will not survive the next election.

The bill was criticised in Dail and Seanad as unjust and an abuse of the government's majority from the moment it was introduced.

The function of the Opposition is to oppose. It shouldn't be such a big surprise to you when the government is criticised.

Besides, it has already been pointed out that the bill marked the implementation of a policy that was public knowledge before the election. The only useful definition of "abuse of majority" would be the implementation of a bill that did not form part of a pre-election policy.

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.

No, Sparks, it's democratic government, by definition.

One more time for the cheap seats: governments pass laws that overturn Supreme Court decisions. It's the way it works. Get over it, or elect someone who'll do something different.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by irish1
If anyone is doing the robbing it's the government with their double taxation.

I swear, if I hear the nonsensical phrase "double taxation" one more time, I'm gonna scream.

Haven't you people noticed that you're taxed every goddamn time you move?

Look: I earn money; I pay tax on it before I see it. I spend it; I've paid tax on it again. I put it in a long-term investment; I pay tax on it when I take it back out.

In many parts of America, I would have to pay income tax to three different governments!

Multiple taxation happens, people. That's just the way life is. It's simple: either you pay for refuse collection based on how much crap you generate, or the government quietly collects whatever amount you decide to generate and levies an indiscriminate tax on everyone to pay for it. Under the internationally-accepted principle that the polluter pays, only the former is acceptable.

Sparks

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Haven't you people noticed that you're taxed every goddamn time you move?
Multiple taxation happens, people. That's just the way life is.

Actually, we decide what way life is. Multiple taxation isn't gravity or sunlight - we *do* have total control over it. And if we decide that we don't want it, guess what? We won't have it.

Besides which, you're talking about having different taxes on different things, not what we're talking about which is different taxes for the same thing.

Different kettle of fish.

Villain

Originally posted by oscarBravo
I swear, if I hear the nonsensical phrase "double taxation" one more time, I'm gonna scream.

Go ahead and scream, it's an expression, and its my opinion which there is nothing you can do about.

Imposter

Originally posted by Sparks
Actually, we decide what way life is. Multiple taxation isn't gravity or sunlight - we *do* have total control over it. And if we decide that we don't want it, guess what? We won't have it.

Besides which, you're talking about having different taxes on different things, not what we're talking about which is different taxes for the same thing.

Different kettle of fish.

<Yawn>

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?

Otherwise shut up about double taxation!

Sparks

Originally posted by oscarBravo
I'm not ignoring that point; that is my point! One of the functions of government is to create legislation for the specific purpose of overriding Supreme Court decisions. Supreme Court rulings aren't made "in the best interests of the people," they are made in accordance with the law currently in force.

Which neatly sidesteps the problem that the government is charged with acting in the best interests of the people, which they're not doing here, either in the short term or the long term.

The question of whether things are "better" or "worse" is a policy decision.

No, it's not a policy decision, it's a matter of record. If "policy decisions" decided what was better or worse, we'd be in an economic slowdown right now instead of the start of a recession... :rolleyes:

If, as you assert, the majority of the people are in disagreement with the government's policies, then the government will not survive the next election.

And so we should just submit to four more years of such decisions? No. Protest now. Don't let the bastards sneak anything in, because the next shower won't bother to back it out if it benefits them when they're in the hotseat.
Which is the problem with our system of government - election comes up, half the country votes ABSF (Anyone But Sinn Fein), and FF gets back in with a tagalong party, and the next thing you know, they're claiming a democratic mandate when only 25.5% of the electorate voted for them, and those were voting to get away from the idea of gunrunners as TDs. This is why I keep saying that representative democracy doesn't work, and why we need to switch to direct democracy. We could have one referndum right now, this weekend, and it would settle this. And it wouldn't cost as much as the protests are costing, noone would have to go to jail and we wouldn't have the public health risks associated with large amounts of uncollected refuse piling up in Fingall.

Besides, it has already been pointed out that the bill marked the implementation of a policy that was public knowledge before the election.

In that it was said to be in FF's manifesto, yes - pity that that was wrong though - it wasn't in there...

One more time for the cheap seats: governments pass laws that overturn Supreme Court decisions. It's the way it works. Get over it, or elect someone who'll do something different.

Actually, that's not quite right. Government is supposed to act in the best interests of the people, and it's not supposed to interfere in the supreme court's side of things unless there's a problem with the law. There wasn't - at least not for the average citizen. There might have been a hiccup for the government, but guess what? They're paid to work with such hiccups, not overrule people's protests by changing the law!

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Sparks
Actually, we decide what way life is. Multiple taxation isn't gravity or sunlight - we *do* have total control over it. And if we decide that we don't want it, guess what? We won't have it.

Absolutely - by voting for someone else, not by sticking two fingers up at the courts!

Besides which, you're talking about having different taxes on different things, not what we're talking about which is different taxes for the same thing.

Thing is, your argument is a clever bit of sophistry, but it doesn't add up.

You say that we are already paying for refuse collection through income tax. Well, DUH!! If a householder is not required to explicitly pay for a service, and it is provided by the local authority, and the local authority is funded by government, which is funded by taxation - then of course we've paid for it with our taxes! How the hell else was it paid for??

But, here's the thing: it's not fair that way, and it's not working. So, a new system is introduced whereby people pay for the service. Now the local authority (or a private company, as in my case) is being paid, and doesn't need funding for that specific service from central government. So therefore, we're not paying for it with our taxes anymore!

Why is this not clear to you?

Villain

Originally posted by Imposter

Otherwise shut up about double taxation!

:rolleyes:

Why should we shut up about it's our opinion???

Imposter

Originally posted by irish1
:rolleyes:

Why should we shut up about it's our opinion???

Because as i've said I've yet to see that this exists. People have been asked to show that people are paying twice for this and have yet to show it. Showing exactly where the local authority is responsible for refuse collection or how their funding is supposed to cover such a service is all it will take. Then I'll have no problem agreeing that it's double taxation. Until then if that's your only argument you might as well be arguing that black is white, because then you'll make more sense!:rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Sparks
Which neatly sidesteps the problem that the government is charged with acting in the best interests of the people, which they're not doing here, either in the short term or the long term.

Sez you. I say that they are. Which of us is right?

No, it's not a policy decision, it's a matter of record. If "policy decisions" decided what was better or worse, we'd be in an economic slowdown right now instead of the start of a recession... :rolleyes:

And you accuse me of sidestepping?

I didn't say policy decisions decide what's better or worse. My point was that what's better or worse is a subjective decision, made by the people. That decision is expressed democratically in an election.

And so we should just submit to four more years of such decisions? No. Protest now. Don't let the bastards sneak anything in, because the next shower won't bother to back it out if it benefits them when they're in the hotseat.

Aah, I get it. You don't like the government that was democratically elected by the people, so your plan is to interfere with the working of that democratically elected government. Nice.

Which is the problem with our system of government - election comes up, half the country votes ABSF (Anyone But Sinn Fein), and FF gets back in with a tagalong party, and the next thing you know, they're claiming a democratic mandate when only 25.5% of the electorate voted for them, and those were voting to get away from the idea of gunrunners as TDs. This is why I keep saying that representative democracy doesn't work, and why we need to switch to direct democracy. We could have one referndum right now, this weekend, and it would settle this. And it wouldn't cost as much as the protests are costing, noone would have to go to jail and we wouldn't have the public health risks associated with large amounts of uncollected refuse piling up in Fingall.

I have issues with our system of government, but that's just ridiculous.

Either we have representative democracy, or we have direct democracy. With direct democracy, you consult all of the electorate on every issue. We'd get a lot done then, wouldn't we?

You may like the idea of mob rule, but I don't, thank you very much.

Actually, that's not quite right. Government is supposed to act in the best interests of the people, and it's not supposed to interfere in the supreme court's side of things unless there's a problem with the law. There wasn't - at least not for the average citizen. There might have been a hiccup for the government, but guess what? They're paid to work with such hiccups, not overrule people's protests by changing the law!

What exactly do you take "the supreme court's side of things" to mean?

A "problem with the law" is another subjective idea. If the democratically elected government have a policy which is at odds with existing law, they have a duty to amend that law. That's why they were elected!

Mind you, in light of your comments re. democracy above, there's probably not a lot of point in arguing this much further with you.

Villain

Originally posted by Imposter
Because as i've said I've yet to see that this exists. People have been asked to show that people are paying twice for this and have yet to show it. Showing exactly where the local authority is responsible for refuse collection or how their funding is supposed to cover such a service is all it will take. Then I'll have no problem agreeing that it's double taxation. Until then if that's your only argument you might as well be arguing that black is white, because then you'll make more sense!:rolleyes:

In my opinion rates were abolioshed years ago before I was born even, I pay PAYE and the government funds the councils.

Paddyo

We do live in a democracy. We have general and local elections every 4/5 years. The local elections will be happening soon. That should be your chance to get politicians to change their policy decisions.

Having 30/40 people protesting outside a gate is hardly a significant minority. In fact on a percentage level it hardly registers. What makes it right for this tiny amount of people to stop everyone else from getting what they have paid for - they may not agree with it - but they have paid for it, and the presumption must be that they want their bins collected.

The reason, in my opinion, for these protestors ignoring the will of the majority of the people is that the politicians who represent them will never be in a positon to influence policy making decisions and that is because the voting people of the country do not want them to influence policy. So they try to influence policy by bullying - my way or no way!

Paddyo

Villain

Originally posted by oscarBravo

Either we have representative democracy, or we have direct democracy.

OR we have a government that doesn't lie to get voted in and then screw us everyway possible.

We can only vote people in on what they SAY they will do we can't make them do it.

Imposter

Originally posted by irish1
In my opinion rates were abolioshed years ago before I was born even, I pay PAYE and the government funds the councils.

Yes but bringing back these rates is not neccesarily double taxation. If I remember correctly wasn't the amount given to local authorities reduced this year?

Sparks

Originally posted by Imposter
<Yawn>
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?
Otherwise shut up about double taxation!

There's the waste management act of '96 that charges the local authorities with waste management, and then there's the figures for the local government fund which pays for local authorities as per the '98 local government act - though I can't find detailed audits of that fund on the web. There's an audit of local government spending on waste management here. There are 29 county councils so I don't have budgetary figures for all of them, but here's Dun Laoighaire's one for a starting point.

So there's your figures. Money comes in through central taxation, gets transferred to the local government fund and then local authorities say "we need X euro this year" and central government is supposed to pay them that. In reality, of course, there's been a theme of cutting the legs off local authorities for the last few years, so there have been government-caused shortfalls in funding - but the day that a deliberately caused shortfall is up to the public to pick up the tab for, is the day that I vote for armed revolt...

Sez you. I say that they are. Which of us is right?

And there we are, back to needing a referendum.

And you accuse me of sidestepping?

I'm not arguing the economy as a topic, I'm using it as an example, not for discussion. Hence, it's not sidestepping.

I didn't say policy decisions decide what's better or worse.

Really? I must have read you wrong. Let's try again?

The question of whether things are "better" or "worse" is a policy decision.

Hmmm. Nope, I can't seem to read you right there either...

Either we have representative democracy, or we have direct democracy. With direct democracy, you consult all of the electorate on every issue.

Nope, wrong. Go learn about it before criticising it, would you?

You may like the idea of mob rule, but I don't, thank you very much.

Really? So you don't like the idea of people making the decision, but it's not fair for people to protest decisions made by representatives who have the support of 25% of the electorate?
Hmmm....

What exactly do you take "the supreme court's side of things" to mean?

A "problem with the law" is another subjective idea. If the democratically elected government have a policy which is at odds with existing law, they have a duty to amend that law. That's why they were elected!

Only if they were elected saying they would do that. Go reread the FF Program for Govenment - it says nothing about adjusting the law to allow the Local Authorities to not collect waste, going against the waste management acts from '96 on...

Mind you, in light of your comments re. democracy above, there's probably not a lot of point in arguing this much further with you.

Why, because I want to see the people asked about it rather than a minority dictate to the majority?

Because as i've said I've yet to see that this exists. People have been asked to show that people are paying twice for this and have yet to show it.

See above. Sorry it took so long, a few government sites have been offline today for some reason.

Showing exactly where the local authority is responsible for refuse collection

That would be acts from the Waste Management Act '96 onwards and culminating in the supreme court decision in '01.

or how their funding is supposed to cover such a service is all it will take.

See above again, for the breakdown of funding expenditure for Dun Laoighaire (just as an example, they were the first ones I went after).

Then I'll have no problem agreeing that it's double taxation.

And now?

Absolutely - by voting for someone else, not by sticking two fingers up at the courts!

'scuse me? We have to accept four years of decisions we didn't ask for without protest then vote for the only other parties on offer? No thanks.

You say that we are already paying for refuse collection through income tax. Well, DUH!! If a householder is not required to explicitly pay for a service, and it is provided by the local authority, and the local authority is funded by government, which is funded by taxation - then of course we've paid for it with our taxes! How the hell else was it paid for??

And this is acceptable as an argument from you but not from me? Hello?

But, here's the thing: it's not fair that way, and it's not working. So, a new system is introduced whereby people pay for the service.

And still having no problem with this, with a caveat...

Now the local authority (or a private company, as in my case) is being paid, and doesn't need funding for that specific service from central government. So therefore, we're not paying for it with our taxes anymore!
Why is this not clear to you?

It is clear to me. I don't understand why it's not clear to you that we're still paying for the original service though, and that that's what's causing the problems.

We do live in a democracy.

A representative one, yes, which doesn't work.

Having 30/40 people protesting outside a gate is hardly a significant minority.

Indeed. What about the hundreds of people outside the Dail though?
And where do you start to draw the line?
Remember, those protestors would be housewives - so every protestor is there representing the household while their partner is out at work.

So they try to influence policy by bullying - my way or no way!

'scuse me? Protesting is bullying, but changing the law when you're beaten in the supreme court isn't?

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
There's the waste management act of '96 that charges the local authorities with waste management, and then there's the figures for the local government fund which pays for local authorities as per the '98 local government act - though I can't find detailed audits of that fund on the web.

Are you claiming that the Dáil doesn't have the power to amend or repeal the laws it passes?

Paddyo

Legal protesting is not bullying - calling to a bin mans house to try and influence him is.

The government is elected by the people to legislate and thats what it did.

Paddyo

Sparks

Originally posted by Meh
Are you claiming that the Dáil doesn't have the power to amend or repeal the laws it passes?

Nope, they have the ability to do so. Mind you, I have the ability to break a man's arm in several places too, but people wouldn't say I was right if I did so...

Had they stood for election on the basis of taking the stance they've taken, they wouldn't have been elected.

ThreadKiller

Haven't read through the whole thread, but I'm willing to bet that if the protesters are successful in Dublin, that the rest of the country & going to follow with it's own protests pretty soon, so can those who're whinging about the protesters please shut the fcuk up & support them & possibly save yourself some money next year...

Paddyo

And who would have been elected?

Paddyo

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Had they stood for election on the basis of taking the stance they've taken, they wouldn't have been elected.

It was pefectly clear to everyone with eyes that an FF/PD government would favour bin charges. Hadn't they just been fighting for them in the Supreme Court?

Sparks

Originally posted by Meh
It was pefectly clear to everyone with eyes that an FF/PD government would favour bin charges. Hadn't they just been fighting for them in the Supreme Court?

It was "obvious" that the economy was up the creek as well. That's the benefit of hindsight, isn't it?

Villain

Originally posted by Paddyo
And who would have been elected?

Paddyo

Another party coalittion that won't lie to the voters to get elected.

Bertie and FF are well fecked, the majority of people feel they were lied to by this goverment and that they are messing them around now and due to their mismanagment taxpayers money is being wasted.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
It was "obvious" that the economy was up the creek as well. That's the benefit of hindsight, isn't it?

You don't need any hindsight to see that an FF/PD coalition would have introduced bin charges. They had been actively trying to introduce since well before the last election, with no shortage of newspaper headlines, public protests and even Supreme Court cases. To claim that the electorate "didn't know" this is disingenuous in the extreme.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Sparks
And there we are, back to needing a referendum.

I'll come back to this shortly.

I didn't say policy decisions decide what's better or worse.

Really? I must have read you wrong. Let's try again?

The question of whether things are "better" or "worse" is a policy decision.

Hmmm. Nope, I can't seem to read you right there either...

Alrighty, I'll grant you that the syntax is ambiguous, so let me rephrase it for you: Whether an approach is "better" or "worse" for the people as a whole is a subjective view. Each party to an election sets out its vision of what is "better" in the form of a policy.

Nope, wrong. Go learn about it before criticising it, would you?

Alright, I assume you're talking about the concept of allowing a specific percentage of the population to trigger a referendum to either introduce legislation or to block proposed legislation.

Has this been implemented anywhere? How well does it work in practice?

Really? So you don't like the idea of people making the decision, but it's not fair for people to protest decisions made by representatives who have the support of 25% of the electorate?

Let's get one thing abundantly clear here: I have no issue whatsoever with protest, as long as it's within the bounds of the law. I have strong views on people who prevent others from receiving a service that they've paid for; I've a problem with people telling the courts that they won't comply with their orders; I've a problem with people protesting against a court punishing people for contempt.

I'm going to reply to some more of your post in another post.

RainyDay

Originally posted by ThreadKiller
Haven't read through the whole thread, but I'm willing to bet that if the protesters are successful in Dublin, that the rest of the country & going to follow with it's own protests pretty soon, so can those who're whinging about the protesters please shut the fcuk up & support them & possibly save yourself some money next year...

You're only fooling yourself, Threadkiller. This service has to be paid for - one way or other. The diesel doesn't get into the bin trucks for free.

If (and it's not going to happen) but just if the protesters were to be successfull and the charges were repealed, you are NOT going to get it for free - You are just going to bury the cost underneath other Govt/council spending and remove any incentive for the consumer to reduce/reuse/recycle.

Or to put it another way, you are encouraging people to make a real mess of the country. You don't inherit the earth from your parents, you borrow it from your children.

Cork

Originally posted by Imposter
Because as i've said I've yet to see that this exists. People have been asked to show that people are paying twice for this and have yet to show it.

These people have yet to prove their arguement of paying twice.

They have failed to show alternative policys to deal with waste.

You don't need any hindsight to see that an FF/PD coalition would have introduced bin charges. They had been actively trying to introduce since well before the last election, with no shortage of newspaper headlines, public protests and even Supreme Court cases. To claim that the electorate "didn't know" this is disingenuous in the extreme.

More than half of this countrys waste is being collected by private contractors. People outside Dublin have been paying bin charges for years. Just as we have no problem paying for ESB. We have no problem paying for bin charges.

Local authoritys have power to impose charges. People pay for drivers licences and motor tax.

Cork

Originally posted by RainyDay
You're only fooling yourself, Threadkiller. This service has to be paid for - one way or other. The diesel doesn't get into the bin trucks for free.

If (and it's not going to happen) but just if the protesters were to be successfull and the charges were repealed, you are NOT going to get it for free - You are just going to bury the cost underneath other Govt/council spending and remove any incentive for the consumer to reduce/reuse/recycle.

Or to put it another way, you are encouraging people to make a real mess of the country. You don't inherit the earth from your parents, you borrow it from your children.

We need to recycle, reduce and re-use. We need to get away from landfill alltogether.

Payment by wieght as introduced in West Cork is the way to go. I am responsible for the rubbish I produce - not the courts, local authority or government.

Sparks

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Alrighty, I'll grant you that the syntax is ambiguous,

That's being a bit generous, isn't it?

so let me rephrase it for you: Whether an approach is "better" or "worse" for the people as a whole is a subjective view. Each party to an election sets out its vision of what is "better" in the form of a policy.

Yes, but the policy for FF & the PDs was set out in their program for government, and as I've just said twice already, it contained nothing saying that this is the course of action they'd choose.
In fact, it goes against the letter of what they said.

Alright, I assume you're talking about the concept of allowing a specific percentage of the population to trigger a referendum to either introduce legislation or to block proposed legislation.

I was actually talking about the full direct democratic system which comprised more than just that one important element.

Has this been implemented anywhere? How well does it work in practice?

Perhaps bonkey should field the second half of that, since he's living in switzerland, which has being doing just that with twice our population for quite some time - since 1848, wasn't it bonkey?

Let's get one thing abundantly clear here: I have no issue whatsoever with protest, as long as it's within the bounds of the law.

And what happens when the law is changed to outlaw protest?

I have strong views on people who prevent others from receiving a service that they've paid for

Even when those preventing the service have paid for it themselves already and they're protesting being billed twice?

I've a problem with people telling the courts that they won't comply with their orders

Even when the law is changed to introduce those orders?

I've a problem with people protesting against a court punishing people for contempt.

Again, even when the law is changed to start the problem in the first place?