Bin charge protests and breastfeeding

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Sparks
I have. See above. Where do you think the local government fund comes from?

I think you're being deliberately disingenuous here. Fact is, it's the function of the Department of Finance to allocate tax revenue as required. All other things being equal (I know, I know) it's a zero sum game. If the government doesn't have to fund the local authorities' refuse collection, there's more revenue available to be spent on other things. True or false?

Except that in this case, the government looks to local authority funding requests and says no. Which means that it's their problem to solve, not anyone elses.

Now who's being ambiguous? Can you clarify that statement for me? Whose problem is it?

Do that!

Genuinely, I will. I think it's an interesting idea with potential merit. An idea without a proposal for how to implement it is a pipe-dream, however.

Oh, be serious...

Alright, let's be serious. You obviously want this, and you don't believe it can be implemented through our existing structures. How do you propose to do it?

That's the problem. How do you get people like FF to give up power for the common good?

Me? I lobby my local TDs (of all shades), councillors and MEPs (especially with local and Euro elections approaching), and I make it an issue. How do you plan to do it? Or would you rather grumble about the current situation and refuse to do anything about it?

Sparks

Originally posted by RainyDay
Ah now I get it. It is acceptable to break the law with illegal protests if and only if you previous protests have been ignored by just about everybody. Now I understand - silly old me.

No, you don't get it.
The earlier protests by bin tax protestors were civil and legal and successful. Then the government, having failed to intimidate the bin tax protestors, rather than giving them their chance in court to prove legally once and for all that it was double taxation, decided to change the law, thus snubbing the entire concept of due process.
When the government does that, it's rather obvious that due process will not suffice. So then what do you do?

More fiction - Where did you get these figures from?

Dublin City Corporation and the Dun Laoighaire council.

Originally posted by OscarBravo
I think you're being deliberately disingenuous here. Fact is, it's the function of the Department of Finance to allocate tax revenue as required. All other things being equal (I know, I know) it's a zero sum game. If the government doesn't have to fund the local authorities' refuse collection, there's more revenue available to be spent on other things. True or false?

False. The government doesn't do that. They leave surplus cash in the accounts until the end of the year and promote themselves by saying that the economy is so healthy, there's a surplus in the budget...

The country isn't run (sadly) as a non-profit organisation.

Now who's being ambiguous? Can you clarify that statement for me? Whose problem is it?

The problem is central governments. Over the past years, local authoritities have suffered cutbacks in funding and in the extent of their powers. That's a central government policy, not one that anyone got elected to promote. If that policy causes shortfalls in local authority spending, that's not for the public to compensate for, but for those that caused the problem - ie. central government.
Clearer now?

An idea without a proposal for how to implement it is a pipe-dream, however.

There are proposals for implementation, it's just that most of them involve lots of duct tape and half the cabinet...
Seriously, there are proposed methods for implementation, but the odds of getting it past a FF/PD government is nil, as they've shown their contempt for the average citizen already.

Me? I lobby my local TDs (of all shades), councillors and MEPs (especially with local and Euro elections approaching), and I make it an issue. How do you plan to do it? Or would you rather grumble about the current situation and refuse to do anything about it?

You're missing the point I was making - it's not a possibility to lobby a TD on this, because you're lobbying a TD to give up power, something that no TD in this country will ever do.
The best route I can think of would be to get the None of the Above option on the ballot, and then demand a change to the system in the resulting electoral face-slapping that the major parties will get.

Besides, it's at least nominally legal to drive a tractor in Dublin.

Hold up there. It's also nominally legal to walk on a public road....

Sparks

Originally posted by Cork
It is very hard to find landfill sites. New + Existing sites need constant management to ensure environmental standards are maintained, Ground water needs protecting for years. Landfill is not a solution to waste management.
Many counties use landfill sites outside their local authority area. Point being - It is hard to find suitable new sites.

Cork, this argument's not about recycling, or waste management policies, or any other FF-speak platitudes.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
When the government does that, it's rather obvious that due process will not suffice. So then what do you do?

You accept the decision of the democratically elected government, even though you don't agree with it?

RainyDay

Originally posted by Sparks

Since nonpayment figures are at 75% in Dublin and 80% in Dun Laoighaire,

RainyDay: More fiction - Where did you get these figures from?

Dublin City Corporation and the Dun Laoighaire council.

Do you just make this up as you go along, Sparks? The correct figures are actually approximately equal to the inverse of the figures you quote.
From Dublin City Council website

Mr. Matt Twomey, Deputy City Manager said ' it is regrettable that while the vast majority of people have responded, two out of ten householders have not.

Two out of 10 does not = 75%, Sparks.

From Dun Laoghaire Rathdown website

70% of householders in the county have paid in full or at least paid the first moiety of the charge,

30% does not = 80%

Sparks

Originally posted by Meh
You accept the decision of the democratically elected government, even though you don't agree with it?

Nope. Not in these circumstances. If you did that, what kind of precedent would you be setting?
Examine the timeline again Meh, and tell me why the government wouldn't do this with something more serious?

2001
Bin tax protests begin in cork.
Bin tax protests escelate : bin tax protestors jailed
Cork councillor goes to supreme court : supreme court rules that local authority may not elect to refuse to collect waste.

Now at this point, the right choice was to pick a bin tax protest representative and take them to court for nonpayment. This would have given a legal ruling on whether or not the bin tax was double taxation. However, cork's pals in FF decided not to, and instead:

2002 Election returns FF/PDs

2003
Protection of local environment bill overrides the 2001 supreme court judgement
Bin tax protests restart, right back at square one.

Sparks

Originally posted by RainyDay
Do you just make this up as you go along, Sparks?

Nope. Mind you, I probably could. I gave my sources for those numbers a number of posts back when you were posting on this thread and it seems you just ignored me, so I could probably make up ****e as I go and you'd never notice...

From Dublin City Council website
Two out of 10 does not = 75%, Sparks.

From an FOI request dated 17th Sept 2002

Total number of households - 166,000 approx
pensioners automatically granted waivers - 20,000 approx
Number of bills sent out - 146,650
Number who have paid in full or part - 36,500
Number who have paid nothing in 2002 - 109,853
ie non-payment of approx 75%

From Dun Laoghaire Rathdown website
30% does not = 80% [/B]

From a Freedom Of Information request :

Out of 64,951 homes sent bills 12,786 had clear accounts at week ending 2nd May 2003. A further 6,380 have paid the first moiety. 13,839 have made other form of payments during the peroid 1/1/03 to 2/5/03. A further 18,627 households have made payments or received a waiver during the peroid 1/1/00 to 2/5/03. 13,319 households have made no payments at all.
So 1/5 have paid and 4/5 (or 80%) haven't paid up (in full or at all) yet.
This info is from Catherine Keenan, Freedom of Information Officer D/R

So do you believe a press release or a FOI request?
Besides, the councils have an interesting way of calculating the figures.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
at week ending 2nd May 2003

So your figures are nearly six months old?

Nope. Not in these circumstances. If you did that, what kind of precedent would you be setting?
Examine the timeline again Meh, and tell me why the government wouldn't do this with something more serious?

Because if they tried it with something more serious, they wouldn't have been reelected?

Sparks

Originally posted by Meh
So your figures are nearly six months old?

Yes, they're the most recent figures I have that I'd trust.
If you've put in a FOI request in the meantime, let us know.
But I doubt that 60% of the people in dublin have paid in the intervening months, based on the "wait and see" psychology most people seem to take.

Because if they tried it with something more serious, they wouldn't have been reelected?

Where were you when they did exactly that with the Freedom Of Information Act????
*sheesh*

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
Nope. Not in these circumstances. If you did that, what kind of precedent would you be setting?

One that would perhaps give you a firm place to stand when you wish to complain about actions by others???

If you want to complain that the government did not use due process, or were in some other way "undemocratic" in how they acted, then surely you lose every possible shred of credibility in such a protest by resorting to the same type of action (i.e. somewhat undemocratic, or ignoring of available "due process"). And yet you're insisting that its ok "in these circumstances".

What circumstances? That the government acted incorrectly before you did?

It always cracks me up how many people use the "but they did it first" argument to justtify doing the same thing that you are complaining about others doing.

At best, Sparks, you seem to be saying that its ok for you to disregard the democratic options open to you because you have decided in advance that they wont work (e.g. expressing your opinion with a vote and encouraging others to do likewise - if there is such opposition to bin taxes, surely it can make a dent in the party numbers). At the same time, you appear one step short of frothing at the mouth (e.g. the apparently-increasing frustration that we won't stop disagreeing with you) about how the government achieved this by disregarding some of the democratic options open to them.

Personally, I can't understand that.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
Because if they tried it with something more serious, they wouldn't have been reelected?

Course they would. When's the last time you saw the Irish nation remember a non-current issue when election time came around, significantly enough for it to effect the outcome.

Every single election we get the opposition (whoever they may be for a given election) coming forth and telling us what a crap job the government did in the previous term. Does this matter? Does it hell.

Most people will still vote for the same old party they always did. Hell, they'll probably vote for the same candidate if its anyone noteable, because these noteable, long-term politicians couldn't be the ones screwing things up....we need them....they have experience, right.

Let me put it this way....if FF actually did something so bad that it had the public and the opposition up in arms soooo much that they folded the government immediately over it.....I would still expect them to take a minimum of 35% in the ensuing election, even if the public opinion which forced them out was over 90%.

Sparks' underlying problem, that I can see, is that democracy has failed in this instance of bins. I don't see it as a failure of democracy at all. While we, as a nation, continue in the practice of not actually thinking about who we vote for (unless its which name from De Partee to pick), then we will continue to get the government we deserve.

I am not inferring that any given individual does not consider their vote. I am stating that, in my opinion, over 85% of the voterate in Ireland do not seriously consider their options. They do exactly what they did the last time, albeit FF, FG, PDs, Greens, Labour, Spoil, Don't Vote, or whatever.

In other words, I would be willing to lay money that the elections in Ireland are almost always decided by under 15% of the voterate, and that its more-or-less the same X% every time.

So why not encourage some people to move from the (100-X) to the X groups, rather than saying that abiding by a democratic decision is the right thing to do? Cause you know you'll never move enough.....

jc

Craptacular

Originally posted by Cork
From an environmental point of view charging for refuse is a good thing.

It will encourage recycling.

Not in its present form it won't. Do you honestly believe that every household in Sligo produces €700 worth of non recyclable waste in a year? That's how much they pay (according to the RTÉ news) for their bin service per year, irrespective of the amount of waste produced.

Only pay by weight can encourage recycling. The current bin tax in most areas just creates a new form of revenue for the local authorities. It does nothing to tackle the waste problem.

Pay by weight is being introduced in all local authority areas over the next three years. Maybe then you can argue that it will promote recycling and that, from an environmental point of view, it's a good thing. Until then that argument is nonsense.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Meh
So your figures are nearly six months old?

No - His Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown figures are six months old, his Dublin City figures are over a year old, and his arguements are about 17 years old, based my unique bullsh1t dating technology.

bonkey

Originally posted by Craptacular
Only pay by weight can encourage recycling.

In fairness, there's a lot of other things which can also encourage recycling.

Being pedantic, "pay by volume" is one

jc

IgnatiusJRiley

Originally posted by Sparks

Even when the law is changed to introduce those orders?

The law is the law is the law.

IgnatiusJRiley

Should the name of this thread change? It's been ages since anyone mentioned that woman who tried to use her child to keep out of jail.

Imposter

Sparks,
I don't think direct democracy can be effectively used in this argument for a few reasons. Firstly each area (Council) can set their own tax rates that cover the costs of the services they provide unlike in Ireland where central government sets these. This would mean Dubliners while paying less for waste than their rural countrymen (if the council pay for the service) would also have to pay entirely for services such as local public transport, in effect meaning that their taxes are higher.

Secondly any vote taken under direct democracy would have to have balanced options. A question such as "Do you want to pay for refuse collection?" would not be offered. Instead the question would be more like "Does the council deal with all waste management through higher taxes or do the polluters pay based on the amount of waste they generate?".

As for your idea of effective protest, I think you confuse the word effective with disruptive. Politicians are generally aware of protests whether they're disruptive or not. They just choose to ignore them just like they can choose to ignore the message behind a disruptive protest while dealing with the disruption through the courts as they are currently doing.

I'll answer back on your proof of double taxation when I get a chance to read the links.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Sparks
False. The government doesn't do that. They leave surplus cash in the accounts until the end of the year and promote themselves by saying that the economy is so healthy, there's a surplus in the budget...

Finish the story, Sparks. Where does the budget surplus go?

The country isn't run (sadly) as a non-profit organisation.

As a matter of fact, it is.

You raise a point that's tangentially related to one of my problems with how the country's run: current-year accounting. Very little concept of accrual or real forward planning, with the recent exception of the new pension reserve fund. But that's another thread...

The problem is central governments. Over the past years, local authoritities have suffered cutbacks in funding and in the extent of their powers. That's a central government policy, not one that anyone got elected to promote. If that policy causes shortfalls in local authority spending, that's not for the public to compensate for, but for those that caused the problem - ie. central government.
Clearer now?

Yes, thank you, but I'm not convinced it forwards your argument. As I said earlier, it's essentially a zero-sum game. Services have to be provided, and we have to pay for them. It seems fairer to me that some services should be paid for directly by their users.

Like it or not, it does free up tax revenue for other uses, and it will be used for other purposes - this year or next - because that's how government finances work.

There are proposals for implementation, it's just that most of them involve lots of duct tape and half the cabinet...

Seriously, there are proposed methods for implementation, but the odds of getting it past a FF/PD government is nil, as they've shown their contempt for the average citizen already.

So vote for someone else, and persuade others to vote for someone else, and let all the politicians know that it's an issue that should be seriously considered in the run-up to an election.

You may not be able to generate a serious influence in this election, or indeed in the next, but if you're passionate about this, and can find others passionate enough to actually do something about it, someday you'll make a difference.

As I said earlier, I might even be persuaded myself.

You're missing the point I was making - it's not a possibility to lobby a TD on this, because you're lobbying a TD to give up power, something that no TD in this country will ever do.

I guess you're right. The white-dominated government in South Africa will probably never be persuaded to give up power either.

Right?

The best route I can think of would be to get the None of the Above option on the ballot, and then demand a change to the system in the resulting electoral face-slapping that the major parties will get.

That's easy. Draw a new box on your ballot paper, write "None of the Above" beside it, and write "1" in the box. Persuade enough people to do it, and you're on to something.

Could be tricky with electronic voting, I admit...

Hold up there. It's also nominally legal to walk on a public road....

Again, to be fair, I saw three neat lines of tractors sheperded onto one side of the road on Merrion Square. Traffic could flow past, and there was nobody deliberately preventing anyone else from receiving a service they'd paid for. That's (one) difference between legal and illegal protesting.

Sparks

Originally posted by IgnatiusJRiley
The law is the law is the law.

Well, actually no. See, the law was the law was the law - and then the government changed it when the law turned out to be on the side of the protestors.

Sparks

Originally posted by RainyDay
No - His Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown figures are six months old, his Dublin City figures are over a year old, and his arguements are about 17 years old, based my unique bullsh1t dating technology.

Indeed? And your figures are where?

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
If you want to complain that the government did not use due process, or were in some other way "undemocratic" in how they acted, then surely you lose every possible shred of credibility in such a protest by resorting to the same type of action (i.e. somewhat undemocratic, or ignoring of available "due process"). And yet you're insisting that its ok "in these circumstances".

Actually I'm insisting that there's no other option other than accepting whatever they tell you to. There's no "okay" in this. This should have been settled in a court two years ago, but the government chose not to do so, and instead just caused this whole mess.

At best, Sparks, you seem to be saying that its ok for you to disregard the democratic options open to you because you have decided in advance that they wont work

Hold up. I decided nothing. I'm just looking at what happened. Due process was used in 2001 - and the outcome was that due process was then changed after the protestors won.
How the hell do you deal with an administration that operates like that?

At the same time, you appear one step short of frothing at the mouth (e.g. the apparently-increasing frustration that we won't stop disagreeing with you) about how the government achieved this by disregarding some of the democratic options open to them.

The frothing is all Cork's fault
And the government didn't disregard some of the democratic options, it disregarded all of them.

Sparks

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Finish the story, Sparks. Where does the budget surplus go?

The next year's accounts or into payments on national debt.

Services have to be provided, and we have to pay for them. It seems fairer to me that some services should be paid for directly by their users.

And noone is saying that the service shouldn't be paid for. Like I've been telling Cork for 20 pages...

Like it or not, it does free up tax revenue for other uses, and it will be used for other purposes - this year or next - because that's how government finances work.

See, there's the problem. I have a right to expect that I won't get charged an arbitarily high level of tax without a plan for spending that cash. It shouldn't just be sitting in a government account waiting for someone to think of a way of spending or investing it, like the national pension fund did. Anyone who's worked with government grants (for sports or whatever) can tell you that you don't get a cent without a plan for spending it, and that plan has to be feasible before it's approved. If the government demand this (as they should), then so should we.

So vote for someone else, and persuade others to vote for someone else, and let all the politicians know that it's an issue that should be seriously considered in the run-up to an election.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what a politician says. It matters what he does. And we all know what election promises are worth.
And there isn't a politician in this country that would willingly sign over authority to anyone, let alone the electorate.

You may not be able to generate a serious influence in this election, or indeed in the next, but if you're passionate about this, and can find others passionate enough to actually do something about it, someday you'll make a difference.

Nope.
The only pragmatic approach I can think of is to get rich to the point of bill gates, then bribe every one of the TDs in the dail to vote one having a referendum to bring in direct democracy. And you'd have to give them a shedload of cash because they'd regard it as the end of their careers.

I guess you're right. The white-dominated government in South Africa will probably never be persuaded to give up power either.

They weren't persuaded, they were forced by political pressure from outside and inside. There's no political pressure for direct democracy, because no politician wants it.

Right? That's easy. Draw a new box on your ballot paper, write "None of the Above" beside it, and write "1" in the box. Persuade enough people to do it, and you're on to something.

Do you know what happens then? It's called a spoilt vote and it's discarded. It doesn't count. It's as if it never happened. Which is right up the government's alley, but not the electorate's. Last time roud, there were 18,303 spoiled votes noted, with no check to see which were accidental spoils and which were deliberate. That's nearly 8,000 more votes than bertie got, but they get ignored. Hell, there were more than 18,303 actual spoilt votes, it's just that five constituencies didn't count them at all.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Sparks
The next year's accounts or into payments on national debt.

Exactly. In other words, our tax money is spent on something other than refuse collection - it doesn't just evaporate. That's my point.

And noone is saying that the service shouldn't be paid for. Like I've been telling Cork for 20 pages...

I'm not being antagonistic here, but I'm getting confused. How do you think refuse collection should be funded? From the general tax take, as in the past? If so, how do you reconcile it with the "polluter pays" principle?

Anyone who's worked with government grants (for sports or whatever) can tell you that you don't get a cent without a plan for spending it, and that plan has to be feasible before it's approved. If the government demand this (as they should), then so should we.

Isn't this what the Budget is for?

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what a politician says. It matters what he does. And we all know what election promises are worth.
And there isn't a politician in this country that would willingly sign over authority to anyone, let alone the electorate.

I'm starting to get a picture of the typically apathetic Irish person here: "the whole country is fscked, and there's no point trying to do anything about it." If you're not prepared to try to change things just because of a foregone conclusion that it can't be done, you've lost any possibility of earning my respect.

The only pragmatic approach I can think of is to get rich to the point of bill gates, then bribe every one of the TDs in the dail to vote one having a referendum to bring in direct democracy. And you'd have to give them a shedload of cash because they'd regard it as the end of their careers.

See above.

They weren't persuaded, they were forced by political pressure from outside and inside. There's no political pressure for direct democracy, because no politician wants it.

It was pressure from people with the foresight to realise that because it should be changed and must be changed, they were damn well going to stand up for what they believed in and make sure it changed.

Those people have my respect.

Do you know what happens then? It's called a spoilt vote and it's discarded. It doesn't count. It's as if it never happened. Which is right up the government's alley, but not the electorate's. Last time roud, there were 18,303 spoiled votes noted, with no check to see which were accidental spoils and which were deliberate. That's nearly 8,000 more votes than bertie got, but they get ignored. Hell, there were more than 18,303 actual spoilt votes, it's just that five constituencies didn't count them at all.

The only possible difference between your proposal and a spoiled vote, is if "None of the Above" got elected and the seat was left vacant. Now that's never going to happen, and it wouldn't be particularly constructive if it did.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Sparks

Like it or not, it does free up tax revenue for other uses, and it will be used for other purposes - this year or next - because that's how government finances work.

That's not where that smiley was in my original post - an insidious bit of misquoting.:mad:

Sparks

Originally posted by oscarBravo

That's not where that smiley was in my original post - an insidious bit of misquoting.:mad: [/QUOTE]
Don't blame me, I just hit the quote link on the thread.

Sparks

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Exactly. In other words, our tax money is spent on something other than refuse collection - it doesn't just evaporate. That's my point.

And that's not acceptable to people, not when they're then asked to pay for the refuse collection after having already paid for it. That's my point.

Look. Go through the audits for the council budgets for the year. Tot up the total amount paid from central government to the local councils for refuse collection. Then deduct that from the budget next year and charge everyone on a polluter pays principle. That would be fair.

What isn't is the way it's being done now - where the budget isn't affected by the lack of a service, it just sucks up the money that you were paying for it and then expects you to pay again. Not everyone can, for a start, and not everyone will lie down and accept it - which is what you're seeing in protests at the minute. Your point isn't valid if people don't have the money to pay twice - and that doesn't necessarily mean being below the breadline, it just means that it's allocated in the family budget for other things like college. Look at sligo, for example - 700 euro per year for waste removal? That's a year's college fees! And you want people to turn that over without a blip?

I'm not being antagonistic here, but I'm getting confused. How do you think refuse collection should be funded? From the general tax take, as in the past? If so, how do you reconcile it with the "polluter pays" principle?

I've said how I would like to see it funded more than three or four times in this thread already. And I've had to make this specific complaint of people ignoring those posts already as well.

Isn't this what the Budget is for?

Nope. The budget says "we expect X amount in, and we're gonna spend it like so". What the government demands before releaseing funds is different - they expect "we want to provide this service, the best price we can get it for is Y, so we need Y euros. Here's our plan for auditing the progress of the service, here's the milestones we expect to pass, here's how we'll ensure that the projects run to budget, and so on". Far more detail required, and it's a case of specifying the project and it's motivations first, money second, not the other way round.

I'm starting to get a picture of the typically apathetic Irish person here: "the whole country is fscked, and there's no point trying to do anything about it." If you're not prepared to try to change things just because of a foregone conclusion that it can't be done, you've lost any possibility of earning my respect.

You'll have to forgive me for not becoming a broken man over that concept, but you've got too much to learn, you see. The average Irish voter isn't apathetic - they're cynical. There's a difference - apathetic voters don't give a damn, cynical ones just know from experience that it doesn't matter how much you care about something, it matters who cares about it, and that nothing in this country ever gets down without one of two things - someone's self-interest algning with that thing, or a marytr. And there are precious few of those around...

The only possible difference between your proposal and a spoiled vote, is if "None of the Above" got elected and the seat was left vacant. Now that's never going to happen, and it wouldn't be particularly constructive if it did.

You don't understand the none of the above vote. It doesn't leave a seat vacant - it requires a new board of candidates be presented.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
What isn't is the way it's being done now - where the budget isn't affected by the lack of a service, it just sucks up the money that you were paying for it and then expects you to pay again.

So the government takes all the PAYE tax money that they were spending on bin collection and burns it in a big pile in front of Leinster House? Don't be ridiculous -- that money that no longer has to pay for refuse collection goes into other government spending, like health and education.

Paddyo

You don't understand the none of the above vote. It doesn't leave a seat vacant - it requires a new board of candidates be presented.

Do you know Sparks, that is probably the only good point you have made so far in this thread.

Everything else you say seems to be a load of socialist bsh1t - everyone deserves everything simply because they exist. It doesnt matter if people work harder, study harder, save harder, spend more cautiously. They should be treated the same as people who sit on their backsides and think that the world owes them somthing.

Most people dont like paying tax - and so most people dont like paying bin charges - but the majority of people are now paying - despite your out of date statistics. I know you will probably say that its because the government changed the law - but they are still paying - law abiding citizens.

Most people would probably prefer not to have to pay bin charges. But most people dont agree with the methods of protest being employed by the anti bin charge campaign. Its dangerous and is causing grief to the people who they say they are protesting for - people like me - I dont want you or the socialist party to protest on my behalf!!

Whether its double taxation or not, breaking the law to achieve your objectives cannot be right.

Paddyo

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Sparks
And that's not acceptable to people, not when they're then asked to pay for the refuse collection after having already paid for it. That's my point.

I'm aware of your point, and I don't agree that it's a valid one. I'm not going to repeat myself any further explaining why I don't agree that it's valid. There's none so deaf as them that will not hear.

Look. Go through the audits for the council budgets for the year. Tot up the total amount paid from central government to the local councils for refuse collection. Then deduct that from the budget next year and charge everyone on a polluter pays principle. That would be fair.

Charging everyone on a polluter pays principle means that individual households pay according to the amount of refuse they generate. How do you do that through central taxation?

Look at sligo, for example - 700 euro per year for waste removal? That's a year's college fees! And you want people to turn that over without a blip?

I think I'm paying 250 per year here in Mayo. I'm paying a private operator for that. If someone comes along and offers to collect it for less, I'll probably switch to them. I don't have a choice if I want my refuse collected.

I've said how I would like to see it funded more than three or four times in this thread already. And I've had to make this specific complaint of people ignoring those posts already as well.

Going by your last post, you want it funded from tax revenue. I don't understand how you propose to make that work on a polluter pays principle.

You'll have to forgive me for not becoming a broken man over that concept, but you've got too much to learn, you see.

Funny thing is, I always considered reasoned debate as a way for intelligent people to earn others' respect. I paid you the compliment of trying to earn your respect with reasoned argument. I had hoped for reciprocity, but if that's not why you're in this discussion, I'll stop. I'm genuinely saddened by your attitude, though.

The average Irish voter isn't apathetic - they're cynical. There's a difference - apathetic voters don't give a damn, cynical ones just know from experience that it doesn't matter how much you care about something, it matters who cares about it, and that nothing in this country ever gets down without one of two things - someone's self-interest algning with that thing, or a marytr. And there are precious few of those around...

Sorry Sparks, but that's apathy thinly disguised as cynicism. You can say "I couldn't be arsed because [whatever]", but you're still saying "I couldn't be arsed." Do something about it, or be apathetical - those are your choices.

You don't understand the none of the above vote.

That's because you didn't explain it.

It doesn't leave a seat vacant - it requires a new board of candidates be presented.

It's an interesting idea, but you still have to find a way to make it happen.

Sparks

Originally posted by Paddyo
Do you know Sparks, that is probably the only good point you have made so far in this thread.

Only from your point of view.

Everything else you say seems to be a load of socialist bsh1t

Not to push your buttons, but I'm not really a socialist. However the governments of the past were, and we're better for it.

everyone deserves everything simply because they exist.

No, we deserve not to be ****ed over because the government has a superiority complex.

It doesnt matter if people work harder, study harder, save harder, spend more cautiously. They should be treated the same as people who sit on their backsides and think that the world owes them somthing.

As a prime example of a family that worked harder, studied harder, saved harder, spent little and made great headway as a result, that's a load of bull. People that sit on their arses and believe the world owes them a living are generally the rich ones, not the poor ones. And unless you grew up poor, you won't understand that - nor will you understand how incredibly essential it is to not just abandon people on the dole like you're suggesting.

Most people dont like paying tax - and so most people dont like paying bin charges - but the majority of people are now paying - despite your out of date statistics.

Prove it. So far on this thread I am the only poster that's posted verifiable facts or figures. You've just waffled and taken press releases from one side of the dispute as gospel.
Until you prove otherwise, I'll trust the FOI figures.

Most people would probably prefer not to have to pay bin charges.

I'm sure that's true. But that's not why they're protesting. They're protesting because many of them cannot afford to pay them twice.
It's fine for you, who probably never had to worry about where the next meal was coming from. Quite a few of us here, I suspect, grew up under slightly different circumstances - and dropping 700 euro for a service you were already charged for is just not an option. That 700 is marked out for college fees for the kids, or payments on a morgage (if you were lucky enough to get a morgage before the house market went ballistic), or food or rent or other essentials.

But most people dont agree with the methods of protest being employed by the anti bin charge campaign.

Really? Says who, Mary Harney? Bertie? The councils?
What you mean to say is that most people who give press conferences don't agree with the methods of protest.

Its dangerous and is causing grief to the people who they say they are protesting for - people like me - I dont want you or the socialist party to protest on my behalf!!

Then you'll be happy to know that I'm not protesting and I'm not in the SWP - as you'd know if you ever read what I post

Whether its double taxation or not, breaking the law to achieve your objectives cannot be right.

Really? Works though, doesn't it?
<looks at Sinn Fein in N.Ireland, Al Quaeda getting US troops out of Saudi Arabia, Fianna Fail gaining Ireland's Republic status...>