Proposed carbon tax

snaps

I know the details are not really known, but im wondering if this carbon tax will be a fair one, ie will people that are being green be better off?

Extra tax on fuel will lead to increase consumer costs (Supermarkets etc)
Higher road tax (It should be one or the other tax on fuel or road tax, not both)
Extra tax on Electricity (But will Artricity be affected as its suppossed to be green?)
I assume Heating oil will be hit (So much for the VAT rate coming down to NI's 5%)
Coal/Briquettes being taxed (More wood being burnt, can't see that being green!)

So will this mean that cross border shopping will increase again next year (Especially now exchange rate it comng round again to 1€-1£)

I assume Northern Irelands heating oil suppliers could deliver in the south (We are in Europe) and consumers pay a lower VAT rate on heating oil?

If fuel increases too much more, people will be topping up across the border (Like people from the north are doing here at the moment?)

ednwireland

its not a carbon tax its just a tax

(you can imagine the politicians "you mean we can raise taxes blame it on the environment and take the moral high ground - brilliant")

greenwash BS of the highest order

i cant afford 10k to put in a decent wood pellet boiler - beleive me i've tried, so i use oil (although i am looking at solar panels but i have to rejig my hot water system

i have no public transport so i use my car i have no choice (i do cycle to work most days)

dvpower

ednwireland wrote: »

its not a carbon tax its just a tax

(you can imagine the politicians "you mean we can raise taxes blame it on the environment and take the moral high ground - brilliant")

greenwash BS of the highest order

i cant afford 10k to put in a decent wood pellet boiler - beleive me i've tried, so i use oil (although i am looking at solar panels but i have to rejig my hot water system

i have no public transport so i use my car i have no choice (i do cycle to work most days)

Sounds like a carbon tax would work a treat with you; encourage you to use your bike more, encourage you to go for that solar panel refit:)

SLUSK

snaps wrote: »

I know the details are not really known, but im wondering if this carbon tax will be a fair one, ie will people that are being green be better off?

Extra tax on fuel will lead to increase consumer costs (Supermarkets etc)
Higher road tax (It should be one or the other tax on fuel or road tax, not both)
Extra tax on Electricity (But will Artricity be affected as its suppossed to be green?)
I assume Heating oil will be hit (So much for the VAT rate coming down to NI's 5%)
Coal/Briquettes being taxed (More wood being burnt, can't see that being green!)

So will this mean that cross border shopping will increase again next year (Especially now exchange rate it comng round again to 1€-1£)

I assume Northern Irelands heating oil suppliers could deliver in the south (We are in Europe) and consumers pay a lower VAT rate on heating oil?

If fuel increases too much more, people will be topping up across the border (Like people from the north are doing here at the moment?)

Carbon tax: Excellent way to destroy an economy and drive us back to the dark ages which is the final goal of the death cult of environmentalism.

leninbenjamin

SLUSK wrote: »

Carbon tax: Excellent way to destroy an economy and drive us back to the dark ages which is the final goal of the death cult of environmentalism.

Carbon tax: The best way to get an overreaction since 1976.

It all depends on how a carbon tax is implemented. I don't have much faith in our current shower, so I think it will just be another excessive contractionary measure by the government all right. But if implemented correctly though, a carbon tax is the fairest incentive though towards reducing green house emissions.

d00gle

Carbon tax, now there's a wise move, just what I expected from out current government!

I live on the Border, about 4 miles in on the republic side, in fact just outside Derry.
1. If they tax fuel the consumers will stop comming here overnight, most have already due to the nearing prices. So therefore all border fuel stations will close on our side and new ones open on the north side and guess what revenue lost directly through fuel stations closing and indirectly because I'll be going north to purchase fuel. Some might say, "thats just the border area", you wouldnt believe how many and how far they travelled to purchase cheaper ROI fuel, businesses and all.
2. Home heating oil, unfortunately they will not bring it across and sell it to you at northern vat rates, you'll have to pay southern rates. Here again a massive loss of revenue because everyone will smuggle heating oil across, its easy and if it for personal use nobody can stop you.
3. Yes lets tax electricty and drive away more industries. Its a stealth tax because nobody can avoid it.
Lets face it its a shaft job. And you'd have to wonder why fuel and electricty is sooooo cheap in the biggest polluter, the usa! fair play to them.
The sooner the government is launched off this planet in a fuel guzzling diesel rocket the better with the greens stuck up the exhaust pipe!

Long Onion

I have a fundamental issue with the introduction of further taxation on diesel. I have to drive 200km per day to get to and from work, due to the neglect shown by successive governments there has been no spending on infrastructure in rural areas so there are no jobs near my home and there is no public transport system capable of taking me there and back in a more environmentall friendly manner.

I drive a 6 year old diesel car and look after it so I get 53mpg. I pay over €800 per year on road tax, vat and excise duty on my fuel, I paid VRT when the car was purchased, I pay IPT of 5% on my insurance premium and I pay income tax at 41% on all the money I use to pay the above.

I would rather see a congestion charge system which would catch the 80% of non-necessary, short distance journeys undertaken by people hopping down to the shops. My journey's are necessary and forced upon me by sub-standard infrastructure so the Gov. can p!ss of with their carbon tax until such time as the give me a workable alternative.

leninbenjamin

But why not live closer to work and save yourself a packet? That's what the carbon tax is meant to encourage.

A carbon tax on fuel alone would be an example though of how to not to implement it. In reality it should be used as an incentive to make real life changes to your own personal carbon emissions. For example, ideally you should be able to offset some of those carbon taxes on your fuel against the cost of a heat exchange system/solar panel/additional insulation (choices that in the long run could save you money).

bop1977

A carbon tax is typical green BS. sure arent petrol & deisel hit with excise duty and vat already. god i hate the fcuking greens.

ei.sdraob

were already paying carbon taxes

just alot of people dont realize as they are so stealthy

DarkJager

I have no interest in paying a carbon tax for anything, as I quite frankly could not care any less about global warming or the other tree hugging bull**** the Greens go on about. People are up to their eyeballs in taxes and levies at the moment without the Captain Planet brigade bringing in such stupidity.

Long Onion

leninbenjamin wrote: »

But why not live closer to work and save yourself a packet? That's what the carbon tax is meant to encourage.

A carbon tax on fuel alone would be an example though of how to not to implement it. In reality it should be used as an incentive to make real life changes to your own personal carbon emissions. For example, ideally you should be able to offset some of those carbon taxes on your fuel against the cost of a heat exchange system/solar panel/additional insulation (choices that in the long run could save you money).

Why should I be forced to change my chosen place of residence just because someone wishes to bring in a law to prevent something that may not actually be happening in the first place. I am being asked to make a concrete and material change for a potentiality - this is not a proportionate response.

The law has long been of the opinion that one has the right to reside in his or her chosen place in peace. If you move into an appartment above a public house you can force the pub below to police noise levels - if they do not do this they could be held liable for nuisance. You seem to be arguing that the governments failure to provide adequate infrastructure is more legitimate than my desire to choose where I wish to rear my family.

I disagree.

Festus

Being carbon based life-forms all taxes on human activity are carbon taxes. It's just an excuse to raise more taxes and by calling it a carbon taxes anyone who objects can be branded anti-green or anti-eco.

What we need are wealth taxes on anyone earning more than 10 times minimum wage.
At 10x minimum you are taking home, what, about 10K a month. If you are earning more than that what are you spending it on?

limericklassy

From what I heard, it will put 1.50 on a bag of coal.:mad:

Festus

Long Onion wrote: »

Why should I be forced to change my chosen place of residence just because someone wishes to bring in a law to prevent something that may not actually be happening in the first place. I am being asked to make a concrete and material change for a potentiality - this is not a proportionate response.

The law has long been of the opinion that one has the right to reside in his or her chosen place in peace. If you move into an appartment above a public house you can force the pub below to police noise levels - if they do not do this they could be held liable for nuisance. You seem to be arguing that the governments failure to provide adequate infrastructure is more legitimate than my desire to choose where I wish to rear my family.

I disagree.

not to mention the fact that many people live where they can afford to live - not where they want to live - and commuting is the only way to get to work.

leninbenjamin

Long Onion wrote: »

Why should I be forced to change my chosen place of residence just because someone wishes to bring in a law to prevent something that may not actually be happening in the first place. I am being asked to make a concrete and material change for a potentiality - this is not a proportionate response.

As a direct consequence then, you avail of publicly supplied resources to a greater degree than others (roads) and not to mention place extra strains on the supply lines of the already over-demanded commodity required to avail of said resources (fuel). Surely it is fair then that you pay additional costs to this extent somewhere?

Long Onion wrote: »

The law has long been of the opinion that one has the right to reside in his or her chosen place in peace. If you move into an appartment above a public house you can force the pub below to police noise levels - if they do not do this they could be held liable for nuisance. You seem to be arguing that the governments failure to provide adequate infrastructure is more legitimate than my desire to choose where I wish to rear my family.

My post never suggested such. Their failure is their own failure, and is unrelated to the issue of a carbon tax. However, it is a fact that it is easier to provide resources to people who live in higher populated areas (I'm making the assumption you're living in a rural area based on your posts?). Thus if you prefer to live in area where it is more costly to supply the infrastructure then you should not expect the same standards.

Pedro K

leninbenjamin wrote: »

But why not live closer to work and save yourself a packet? That's what the carbon tax is meant to encourage.

Wow, that's a great idea. Maybe all the TDs can move closer to the Dáil and stop claiming travel expenses too....

Long Onion

leninbenjamin wrote: »

As a direct consequence then, you avail of publicly supplied resources to a greater degree than others (roads) and not to mention place extra strains on the supply lines of the already over-demanded commodity required to avail of said resources (fuel). Surely it is fair then that you pay additional costs to this extent somewhere?

I already pay additional costs - I pay more fuel excise and vat because I use more fuel. I pay my annual road tax also.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

My post never suggested such. Their failure is their own failure, and is unrelated to the issue of a carbon tax. However, it is a fact that it is easier to provide resources to people who live in higher populated areas (I'm making the assumption you're living in a rural area based on your posts?). Thus if you prefer to live in area where it is more costly to supply the infrastructure then you should not expect the same standards.

With respect, I believe that the second part of this post is absolute rubbish. I personally pay over €25k per annum in tax, by your logic I should be entitled to better services as I am a more economic member of society than a minimum wage earner living in an urban centre. We, in rural areas, pay water charges already and, often higher installation fees for ESB. We have no broadband and pay a private company to collect our waste. We have no sewerage scheme and supply our own septic tank which we service ourselves.

We have no public transport and have to drive to the nearest town if we want any supplies. I would ask you to re-consider this post. I would also turn your logic around and ask you why urban dwellers should not have to burden the full carbon cost of vehicles seeing as how a car is obviously a luxury in your view, if you live in a urban centre where utitlies and services are so splendiferous?

leninbenjamin

Long Onion wrote: »

I believe that the second part of this post is absolute rubbish.

your 'beliefs' do not change facts.

bladespin

The farmers will go bonkers, what will the rate per cow be??? :P

They do make a significant contribution.

Long Onion

leninbenjamin wrote: »

your 'beliefs' do not change facts.

Perhaps you could deal with the issues I raised in response to your post then.

Thank you.

parsi

Long Onion wrote: »

pay a private company to collect our waste

City folk also pay for their waste.

Long Onion

parsi wrote: »

City folk also pay for their waste.

I don't believe I said that they didn't - I was merely illustrating the fact that we are not provided with much in the way of infrastructure at the tax payers expense.

ednwireland

bladespin wrote: »

The farmers will go bonkers, what will the rate per cow be??? :P

They do make a significant contribution.

that would be a methane tax

dvpower wrote: »

Sounds like a carbon tax would work a treat with you; encourage you to use your bike more, encourage you to go for that solar panel refit:)

wrong again cant afford not to ue the car for what i'm using it for the solar panels will not dent my winter heating bills much, \a carbon tax will actually make it harder for me to do this. eps with pay cuts etc

Kered75

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Thus if you prefer to live in area where it is more costly to supply the infrastructure then you should not expect the same standards.

So should people in living in rural areas stop subsidizing through taxes the the transport infrastructure of those that live in urban areas

leninbenjamin

Long Onion wrote: »

Perhaps you could deal with the issues I raised in response to your post then.

Thank you.

well I thought I had laid out my argument pretty clearly before, but here goes:

Long Onion wrote: »

I already pay additional costs - I pay more fuel excise and vat because I use more fuel. I pay my annual road tax also.

True. But does that outweigh the cost of providing services to rural areas? nope.

Long Onion wrote: »

With respect, I believe that the second part of this post is absolute rubbish. I personally pay over €25k per annum in tax, by your logic I should be entitled to better services as I am a more economic member of society than a minimum wage earner living in an urban centre.

Fair dues. You pay the appropriate tax band for your pay bracket like everyone else. By that logic you are entitled to the same 'spend' per head as those paying the same band in an Urban area.

Long Onion wrote: »

We, in rural areas, pay water charges already

We will be too, so I don't see the point of this.

Long Onion wrote: »

and, often higher installation fees for ESB.

Because it typically requires digging up and laying out a hell of a lot more cable to someone in rural areas. Not to mention the cost of transport for the workers to get there.

Long Onion wrote: »

We have no broadband

Again, see the above. The infrastructure required to supply broadband is very expensive. It's simply not cost effective to lay lines in rural areas where only a handful of people would be using it.

Long Onion wrote: »

and pay a private company to collect our waste.

So do we. Again, moot.

Long Onion wrote: »

We have no sewerage scheme and supply our own septic tank which we service ourselves.

Long Onion wrote: »

We have no public transport and have to drive to the nearest town if we want any supplies.

Tbh, the counter argument to both doesn't change.

Long Onion wrote: »

I would also turn your logic around and ask you why urban dwellers should not have to burden the full carbon cost of vehicles seeing as how a car is obviously a luxury in your view, if you live in a urban centre where utitlies and services are so splendiferous?

Who said they were splendiferous?

Well it's a fair point in one respect, urban dwellers do use cars much more than they should, I'm not going to deny that. I'd argue a congestion charge would be more suitable.

As for the rest though, my stance is unchanged. It's simple economics based on opportunity cost and economics of scale. The more people using a service the lesser the cost to society. Say a mile of good regional road in rural areas might be used by a few hundred people a day, whereas a mile of dual carriageway in a urban area is used by tens of thousands of people a day, which one benefits society more? Which one has the lower cost per head? Which one should be encouraged?

Now i know the counter argument is that the quality of life is always going to be greater in rural areas, safer, my outdoor activities, closer community blah blah. But I've lived in both. I've seen some great spots absolutely destroyed by one off commuter homes. So where's the benefit?

Anyway, in relation to the carbon tax. Rural dwellers made their choice of living in the knowledge that they would have to travel more by car. Fair enough. But you created much more pollution, increased the costs of basic services for the general population, have your one off houses and septic tanks do extra damage to the surrounding environment, and generally create additional costs to society than the equivalent urban dweller. So I'm not going to favour exemptions for rural dwellers, I'd say it doesn't go far enough. And if that means encouraging commuters to live closer to work, so be it.

It's not also simply a case of carbon usage. Petrol is imported. Petrol is a finite resource. More petrol used places additional strain on the nations balance of trade, and drives prices up as supply lines become strained. It's bad for everyone. If a carbon tax is implemented in such a way as to reduce the consumption of oil/gas/coal then it's good for everyone in society. Rural dwellers should not get exemption from such.

Kered75 wrote: »

So should people in living in rural areas stop subsidizing through taxes the the transport infrastructure of those that live in urban areas

that's actually a fair point, and one I believe needs to be addressed. When you think about it a large portion of your tax take simply goes to sustaining the lives of those living in Dublin. Decentralisation had it worked might have addressed this, but then there's also the issue that decentralised services cost more to implement.

It doesn't change the basic argument of my preceding post though. Services cost more per head in rural areas than in urban areas. With proper town planning (that's the big one), and encouragement, it's entirely feasible that the quality of life could be raised in this country by centralising services.

edit: I should say that I'm not against rural life in general. But i am against commuting. Rural development should be conducted in a sustainable manner that does the utmost to limit damage to the environment. Commuting is not compatible with this (and indeed does a lot of damage to rural communities).

Tipsy Mac

The Greens got 2.3% of the vote in the local elections, says it all really with where they are going, I can't wait until they get there

Heroditas

Bord Gáis today vowed to create 250 jobs as part of a massive €2.5bn spending spree that will inject life into the economy.

The semi-state energy giant said new recruits are needed by the end of next year for its energy efficiency scheme.

Insulation and other energy-saving measures will be fitted in customers’ homes, under the programme.

Energy Minister Eamon Ryan praised Bord Gáis for creating opportunities out of the present economic and climate crisis.

“These are green jobs in the green economy and I congratulate Bord Gáis on embracing this exciting future,” he said.

The €2.5bn investment plan will see:

:: Six “major” projects rolled out over the next five years which “will provide a substantial economic stimulus to the Irish economy”.
:: Completion of a €400m power plant at Whitegate, Midleton, Co Cork.
:: Some €1.2bn poured into wind energy projects
:: Electricity peaking plants constructed at a cost of €300m.

John Mullins, chief executive of Bord Gáis, said Ireland needed to improve its energy efficiency and invest in sustainable power alternatives to keep up with demand and international developments.

“A reduction in the number of new houses being built, combined with people moving homes less frequently, means that investing in improving the energy efficiency of people’s homes makes financial sense,” he said.

Anyone see a contradiction here? :rolleyes:

Let them build a gas-powered station, we'll tax them and then when they sell electricity to homes and businesses, we'll tax them too :rolleyes:

ashleey

about the rights and wrongs. The govt. will be killing themselves laughing: they've engineered a private sector vs public sector fight and now we'll have the rural vs urban fight. When we're fighting each other we won't be fighting them.

You can't beat a good media discussion about climate change or global warming or whatever it's being called this week to get the rest of the mess out of the news. And if that fails there's always foot and mouth, I mean bird flu, I mean SARS, etc...

Kered75

leninbenjamin wrote: »

edit: I should say that I'm not against rural life in general. But i am against commuting. Rural development should be conducted in a sustainable manner that does the utmost to limit damage to the environment. Commuting is not compatible with this (and indeed does a lot of damage to rural communities).

But you must be living in some kind of fantasy world about 100 years into the future,this is Ireland.The very same party that wants to bring in this tax is currently shacked up in govenment with a party that decided to have most jobs located in the urban parts of the country whilst making the people that had to work, live in rural areas and commuter towns ,often with no services at all.Most people could not afford house close to their jobs, due to the way govenments in this country rezoned land keeping prices high.Many more like myself are living in an area were there is little or no employment so therefore have to travel long distances to work.
This is just another tax on the motorist who already coughs up huge amounts to this govenment to keep in them in their chauffer driven cars Greens included.

Kered75

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Because it typically requires digging up and laying out a hell of a lot more cable to someone in rural areas. Not to mention the cost of transport for the workers to get there.



Again, see the above. The infrastructure required to supply broadband is very expensive. It's simply not cost effective to lay lines in rural areas where only a handful of people would be using it.

So let me get this you want those of us that live in rural areas not to have to cummute to cities and large towns to find work yet you don't think that these areas should have proper infrastructure which may give people a chance to find work more locally in the future.
Should the whole country just move to Dublin then???Galway maybe??

thethedev

Carbon tax is the biggest load of bollox ever.
Only 3% of the carbon created every year is created by human activities.
In the 70's they thought the world was heading for an ice age. Now they think its getting warmer?
I've never heard such bull****, someone needs to shoot that Al Gore asshole.
Dont we already pay a carbon tax anyway?
Huge taxes on cars with bigger engines and a massive tax on fuel?
TBH I dont mind the government looking for more money, just dont ****ing insult my intelligence....

Liam Byrne

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Thus if you prefer to live in area where it is more costly to supply the infrastructure then you should not expect the same standards.

I'd gather that this means that the Dubs shouldn't really expect the M50, the Luas or the Port Tunnel, then ?

Because whatever about the initial, projected costs of those being proportional to the number of people using them, the final costs and over-runs, combined with the ridiculous State buyout of the M50 toll bridge - are WAY over what was originally projected, and I'd argue that they've been subsidised by both the rural-dwellers and those living the other cities.

Add in the mental cost of what would - up to now - have been viewed as "potential development land" (with the resulting OTT price tags) in those areas, and there's a compelling argument that it could well be cheaper to provide proper services and infrastructure to the rest of the country, and thereby lower the costs, reduce commuting, and improve quality of life.

Also : Limerick to Galway train trip = via Dublin.......it's no wonder people use their cars!

The "if you build it (and make it affordable) they will come" logic does not, unfortunately, apply to planning and foresight (if such a thing exists) in Ireland.

leninbenjamin

Kered75 wrote: »

But you must be living in some kind of fantasy world about 100 years into the future,this is Ireland.The very same party that wants to bring in this tax is currently shacked up in govenment with a party that decided to have most jobs located in the urban parts of the country whilst making the people that had to work, live in rural areas and commuter towns ,often with no services at all.Most people could not afford house close to their jobs, due to the way govenments in this country rezoned land keeping prices high.Many more like myself are living in an area were there is little or no employment so therefore have to travel long distances to work.

Hence my emphasis on proper town planning. I don't have many major disagreements with what you say there, but that doesn't necessarily mean we must continue living this way as a nation.

Kered75 wrote: »

This is just another tax on the motorist who already coughs up huge amounts to this govenment to keep in them in their chauffer driven cars Greens included.

You're right. I disagree entirely with how our current shower are going to implement this. Any carbon tax should not be a drain on the economy, the gains of it should be redirected into encouraging sustainable living.

Kered75 wrote: »

So let me get this you want those of us that live in rural areas not to have to cummute to cities and large towns to find work yet you don't think that these areas should have proper infrastructure which may give people a chance to find work more locally in the future.
Should the whole country just move to Dublin then???Galway maybe??

You're missing the point. Rural development should focus on creating jobs in those rural areas, not facilitating commuters, in order to encourage a more sustainable way of life.

Secondly, you're ignoring my point about the cost per head. If additional infrastructure creates more jobs in those areas, then it obviously will lower the total cost to society, as the cost is offset by the gain in employment. But if it just results in people applying for jobs much further away from their place of residence then it increases the cost to society. It's a balancing act, perhaps something I should have stressed.

But generally, yes. Long commutes are wasteful and lower the overall quality of life. I really think it's something that the government should actively discourage. You may call that idealistic if you like...

thethedev wrote: »

In the 70's they thought the world was heading for an ice age. Now they think its getting warmer?

Global warming does lead to an ice age afaik. I don't fully understand it, but I think the general consensus is that when the earth warms up enough it causes the ocean currents and winds to break down, which prevents the redistribution of the heat. The result is that areas closer to the poles (e.g. Europe) become much, much colder. In between is chaos, storms, extremes, etc.

eamo127

Carbon tax - the greatest con job in history. Pure propaganda i.e. pony up or the earth gets it! Cap and trade will destroy countless jobs and penalise those who can least afford it. I cannot stress enough the folly of this great swindle.

RCIRL

eamo127 wrote: »

Carbon tax - the greatest con job in history. Pure propaganda i.e. pony up or the earth gets it! Cap and trade will destroy countless jobs and penalise those who can least afford it. I cannot stress enough the folly of this great swindle.

100% correct, pure b****** coming from headless chickens. Its called pilferage, robbing, theft, penny pinching. These are acts that come from the lowest forms of life when desperate for money. God only knows what other b******* tax will come out in the new budget. I wouldn't be surprised if the Greens introduce a breathing of "air" tax. Breathing air is harmful for the environment so it must be taxed, it will control our excessive breathing.

Scofflaw

Again, can we tone down the language, please. If you have a point, then lots of asterisks won't strengthen it - and if you don't have a point, then lots of asterisks won't either compensate for that fact or hide it.

If your entire point is "blargh I hate taxes" or "blargh I hate Greens", or a combination thereof, as it is for many of these posts, feel free not to waste the pixels.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Heroditas

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I don't fully understand it, but I think the general consensus is that when the earth warms up enough it causes the ocean currents and winds to break down, which prevents the redistribution of the heat. The result is that areas closer to the poles (e.g. Europe) become much, much colder. In between is chaos, storms, extremes, etc.

Yet they say that within the next few years, the North Pole will be free of ice in the summer.
It's these sort of contradictions that make an awful lot of people skeptical

Kered75

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Secondly, you're ignoring my point about the cost per head. If additional infrastructure creates more jobs in those areas, then it obviously will lower the total cost to society, as the cost is offset by the gain in employment. But if it just results in people applying for jobs much further away from their place of residence then it increases the cost to society. It's a balancing act, perhaps something I should have stressed.

But what kind of infrastructure do you want in rural areas when you have already stated that broadband isn't a cost effective option??Tree lined avenues maybe??

Long Onion

leninbenjamin, my problem with your concept is that I can see no coherency. You argued that I should have to pay a higher tax due to the fact that I chose to live in a rural area where the cost of providing infrastructure was higher.

I pointed out that I already pay extra for the poor infrastructure (i.e. pay extra to the esb for connection, pay for water, pay for bins) I then point out that other infrastructure is not provided (no public transport, no broadband, no sewage etc.).

You answer is : a) You should pay for the infrastructure because you live in a ruaral area; and

b) You should not be provided with infrastructure because you live in a rural area.

Which is it? Am I entitled to it if I pay (which I do)
Or am I not entitled to it (despite the fact that I pay a good deal of tax) because I live in the countryside

If the latter, why should I not have a tax relief as a rural dweller?

Stark

Long Onion wrote: »

The law has long been of the opinion that one has the right to reside in his or her chosen place in peace. If you move into an appartment above a public house you can force the pub below to police noise levels - if they do not do this they could be held liable for nuisance. You seem to be arguing that the governments failure to provide adequate infrastructure is more legitimate than my desire to choose where I wish to rear my family.

I disagree.

The law isn't of the opinion that you should get a personal motorway from whatever random place you choose to setup home to whatever random place you choose to work.

Stark

Long Onion wrote: »

leninbenjamin, my problem with your concept is that I can see no coherency. You argued that I should have to pay a higher tax due to the fact that I chose to live in a rural area where the cost of providing infrastructure was higher.

I pointed out that I already pay extra for the poor infrastructure (i.e. pay extra to the esb for connection, pay for water, pay for bins) I then point out that other infrastructure is not provided (no public transport, no broadband, no sewage etc.).

You answer is : a) You should pay for the infrastructure because you live in a ruaral area; and

b) You should not be provided with infrastructure because you live in a rural area.

Which is it? Am I entitled to it if I pay (which I do)
Or am I not entitled to it (despite the fact that I pay a good deal of tax) because I live in the countryside

If the latter, why should I not have a tax relief as a rural dweller?

You pay less for your house as it's in the middle of nowhere away from established facilities. The cost per person of delivering infrastructure to you is far greater than it is for delivering infrastructure to a town or a city. People in dense population areas are treated to better facilities because they're essentially pooling their tax contributions and benefiting from economies of scale. There's no way someone living in a house on their own in the middle of the country could contribute enough tax to justify the entire infrastructure of a city being provided. Public transport? Do you expect them to run empty buses up and down all day long just in case you decide to leave the car at home one day?

Long Onion

Stark wrote: »

The law isn't of the opinion that you should get a personal motorway from whatever random place you choose to setup home to whatever random place you choose to work.

I was not requesting increased infrastructure - I was making the point that, if I am forced to travel a long distance to work because:

a) The lack of investment outside urban centres has resulted in a scarcity of jobs; and

b) The lack of spending has resulted in non-existent public transport

Then I shouldn't be forced to pay extra for this, especially when urban dwellers have access to better infrastructure thus making their use of private motor vehicles even more unnecessary.

I am fine with not having a motorway, I am not fine with having to pay on a polluter pays principle when my hand is forced to a larger extent then others.

Long Onion

Stark wrote: »

You pay less for your house as it's in the middle of nowhere away from established facilities. The cost per person of delivering infrastructure to you is far greater than it is for delivering infrastructure to a town or a city. People in dense population areas are treated to better facilities because they're essentially pooling their tax contributions and benefiting from economies of scale. There's no way someone living in a house on their own in the middle of the country could contribute enough tax to justify the entire infrastructure of a city being provided. Public transport? Do you expect them to run empty buses up and down all day long just in case you decide to leave the car at home one day?

Please se my response above. Please read the totality of my posts in context. Please note that I recieve no infrastructure that I do not pay for, I built my own home - the cost was not influenced by location - the site was a wedding gift.

If you can point out to me the free services that I recieve which subsidise my choice of location I would be greatful, otherwise I will see that your post is simply reflective of the fact that you have not read my arguments in context.

Kered75

Stark wrote: »

You pay less for your house as it's in the middle of nowhere away from established facilities. The cost per person of delivering infrastructure to you is far greater than it is for delivering infrastructure to a town or a city

So I'll just go and ask my boss for a 100% payraise so i can live closer to work

Stark wrote: »

People in dense population areas are treated to better facilities because they're essentially pooling their tax contributions and benefiting from economies of scale. There's no way someone living in a house on their own in the middle of the country could contribute enough tax to justify the entire infrastructure of a city being provided.

Every taxpayer in the country has contributed to the M50,Luas,Dublin bus etc.. not just those who avail of these services

Stark wrote: »

Public transport? Do you expect them to run empty buses up and down all day long just in case you decide to leave the car at home one day?

Of course I don't thats why I have a car