Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why do the Green party seem to have it in for country people?
Options
Comments
-
We will have to hide the septic tanks then. Its a bit rich charging someone for a basic facility that is owned, paid for and maintained by the householder and used on his/her property. This very same Government aided and abetted by the Gormless Greens promoted build , build and build on every square metre of land no matter where not one bit worried about the environmental impact, now its all concern for the environment. What hypocrisy.
Its a bit rich to say the Green aided and abetted the property bubble, it was mid 2007 before they came to power if I recall.0 -
Incorrect. Brian Lenihan "indefinitely postponed" it a few months ago.NewDubliner wrote: »The decentralisation project is ongoing, but at a slower pace & it was justified as a means of supporting rural towns that no longer have an economic reason to exist.
Well, if you have a car, you have to have it NCT'd? Same principle.
If you don't have a car (or septic tank) because you live in a well-served town, you don't have those costs. Lifestyle choice.
Also, I can't see the relevance of the NCT to this. They only apply specifically to older cars or else taxis. EVERY septic tank would be liable to this charge. Furthermore, there is equity involved in this. Everyone who uses a car for transport may be liable to the NCT after a period of time. In this case, rural users must pay for a service that they funded 100% while sewerage-supplied users (paid with my taxes already thanks) need pay nothing. That is unjustifable. Finally, who said that the NCT was necessarily a perfect scheme??0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Its a bit rich to say the Green aided and abetted the property bubble, it was mid 2007 before they came to power if I recall.
A lot happened in 2 years. They are now aiding and abetting the implementation of NAMA which is completely and utterly a response and a consequence of the glut and excess of the property bubble= in my book aiding an abetting the property bubble( which may be burst but the excess will be paid for many years to come)0 -
NewDubliner wrote: »Entering into the sprit of your rather amusing & humourous robust rural abuse - Dole and bailouts for lazy countryfolk. 'Decentralised' jobs moved at a cost of over 300 million euro. Subsidies. Money for speaking Irish. Health and welfare services for non-taxpaying farmers.
All of you, you're all farmers/farm workers? That's great news. Last time I was speaking to a farmer friend of mine, he couldn't get any locals to work on his farm, 'too hard' they said.
Family of fishermen actually. But you know, a lot more people could be too, if the greens were not in the process of destroying an industry. Never got any subsidies or social welfare except the so called universal entitlements.
Bailouts for farmers? Really? I obviously misunderstood NAMA. I thought it was for the bankers. CAP is a failed policy, which now exists to keep food prices artificially low as much as to support farming inefficiency. That's not much benefit to farmers, who wouldn't mind being able to sell produce at a market rate, as they have created cost saving measures?
Just out of interest, how much oil has Dublin got? How about natural gas? I think it's hilarious when Dubs/Urbanites come in here to lecture so called culchies. When one takes away corporation tax attributed to urban areas, even though the money is actually earned outside of these places, it becomes immensely obvious that Dublin is in fact, subsidised by everyone else.
Londoners, who shared the same misconception as yourself, were all pro Scottish independence. That is, until they realised, all that oil/gas etc, was actually Sottish, it was just the headquarters of the companies were based in London.
But the biggest iony of all? If we were to apply the exact same logic to govt expenditure as to revenue. I.e. Any tax expenditures etc would be defined as spent in the area of the companies headquarters. That would mean NAMA, is solely a Dublin matter. But, but, but that's not fair you stutter. Not my fault, you made the lifestyle choice to live near banking headquarters.0 -
You said 'scrapped' it's "indefinitely postponed" until the next election.To_be_confirmed wrote: »Incorrect. Brian Lenihan "indefinitely postponed" it a few months ago.
It's the same idea. You own something that might harm others if it doesn't work right.To_be_confirmed wrote: »Also, I can't see the relevance of the NCT to this.
I think you'll find that the bulk of taxes are paid by urban dwellers and the rural community are net beneficiaries.0 -
Advertisement
-
A lot happened in 2 years. They are now aiding and abetting the implementation of NAMA which is completely and utterly a response and a consequence of the glut and excess of the property bubble= in my book aiding an abetting the property bubble( which may be burst but the excess will be paid for many years to come)
I agree with your position on NAMA but you can't back date that policy to the previous 14 years.0 -
NewDubliner wrote: »
I think you'll find that the bulk of taxes are paid by urban dwellers and the rural community are net beneficiaries.
any numbers to backup your thesis? also what is the ratio of urban:rural in ireland?0 -
NewDubliner wrote: »Let's not personalise this to individual cases. The self-sufficient guy who grows his own food and only has a 36 euro ESB bill every two months is a special case....... .
I was going to bite my tongue. About the "lifestyle choices", about the bull proported that living in the country causes more pollution than living in an urban area, despite the fact that the greens won't support REPS, and even about "countryfolk":rolleyes: being lazy. But you have just nailed the last nail in the lid of your coffin newDUBLINER. You think self-sufficiency is the exception rather than the rule in the country? Honestly? I dont know whether thats naivety or ignorance in its purest form. Seriously, get a clue. Your credibility has now been wiped out.NewDubliner wrote: »Abolishing the Department of Gaeltacht and Rural affairs is a step in the direction of sustainable economic polices.
And the OP's question has been answered. Yes, they DO have it in for country people, and the reason - money
Funny how they call themselves greens. They should be called the anti-greens.0 -
From the ESRI Research Bulletin 2009/1/3:any numbers to backup your thesis? also what is the ratio of urban:rural in ireland?...Overall, Dublin and the South-West region are substantial net contributors. For example, in 2004 both Dublin and the South-West contributed just over €2,000 per person while in the same year the Midlands region received a transfer of just over €3,000 per person. In
absolute terms the level of transfers is also substantial. In 2004 just over €3 billion were transferred from the ‘net surplus regions’ Dublin, South-West and Mid-West to the other regions. Overall the tax burden (including social contributions) averages at €11,000 per person in 2004 with a high for Dublin of almost €14,000 per person and a low of €8,500 per person in the Midlands.
Feel free to quote something credible (e.g. from the ESRI) in support of your claim or risk losing your own credibility. How many people are self-sufficient? How many are not paying tax, not claiming dole, welfare or health benefits and effectively living outside of the system?me_right_one wrote:You think self-sufficiency is the exception rather than the rule in the country? ....Your credibility has now been wiped out.
Yes indeed, the free ride is over.me_right_one wrote:And the OP's question has been answered. Yes, they DO have it in for country people, and the reason - money0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
You think politicians are the only ones who are allowed to have an agenda? I stand by my point that your attempt to create a feeble link between the economic crisis and our failed commuting patterns was a cheap, populist trick. Your claim has no basis.Liam Byrne wrote: »Sorry ? I'm not aiming for any "populist angle" - I'm not a politician. And I'm telling it like I see it - people can agree or disagree - but there's no agenda, so I'd appreciate if you would avoid implying that I'm "trying for" one.
Sorry but the Greens are not in charge of the Dept of Transport. To assume that they can march in and tell Dempsey or the feckin PT unions what to do betrays a total lack of understanding of how this country works. I don't agree with the current situation either but seriously this is entering fantasy land now.Liam Byrne wrote: »Fair point. Yes, nothing was done about it so it got worse and worse, and you'd have to admit that closures of previously-existing post offices, Garda stations and bus services have made it worse. That is my point; that in addition to forcing people to live further and further away, they even removed EXISTING services.
A factor in A LOT of people's decisions. I worked in an architects practice and they said there was simply no market for apartments. It was/is considered second-class accommmodation by most people.Liam Byrne wrote: »Possibly a factor in some people's decisions, yes. But the patronising posts earlier dismissing everyone living outside a city via a "lifestyle choice" is way off the mark.
TBH services cost more to where you are though electricity etc so yes it does work both ways. I still don't see what your problem is with the changes the Greens want to bring in on septic tanks.Liam Byrne wrote: »Again, I don't (per se) have a problem with it; the reason I brought it up is that they are urban-only facility in a miles-away city that are of no use to me, despite my taxes contributed. And if the logic that some people apply to rural living were applied to those, it would be "tough **** - you chose to live in Dublin so put up with the traffic".
It should work both ways.
Again, the Greens are not in charge of Transport. WHY don't people understand how government actually works in this country?Liam Byrne wrote: »As I said, no trains from Limerick to Galway. Additional taxes and charges at airports. A quadrupling of the bus charge for my sister's kids to get to school.
Sorry but urban and transport economics don't work like that. There has probably been no critical mass achieved and still very low density. I note the way you say HOUSES, not apartments.Liam Byrne wrote: »The house I'm in was built in 1958, and there were 6 houses on the road then. There are now about 150. If anything, this means that public services should be MORE feasible.
And you think nothing that you do gets subsidised? Get real.Liam Byrne wrote: »If you want to throw away or ignore the valid points made in order to get in a cheap dismissive dig, fire away. But I stand 100% over everything I said; some totally, some in the context of being patronised and insulted about lifestyle "choices" because of where I live and somehow being "subsidised" by those amazingly thoughtful and responsible people who chose to live in cities.
And you're hardly one to talk about "cheap dismissive digs" after your comment about the Greens and septic tanks. Don't be a hypocrite - or even worse, an indignant hypocrite.0 -
Advertisement
-
If there are cheap dismissive digs, stop making them.
If there are personal cheap submissive digs made in the future, kindly report them rather than starting a handbag fight about whether there were or not.
/mod0 -
You think politicians are the only ones who are allowed to have an agenda? I stand by my point that your attempt to create a feeble link between the economic crisis and our failed commuting patterns was a cheap, populist trick. Your claim has no basis.
You surely mean that you stand by your (incorrect) opinion. I know that I made no attempt to create any "feeble link" or engage in "a cheap, populist trick", so you can think what you like but you're wrong.
The fact is that people bought houses where they could afford them. And many people commute from Portlaoise to Dublin as a result, not only adding to pollution, etc, but also not seeing their kids from 6am til 9pm. Maybe there are people who view that as a "lifestyle choice", but I'm certainly not one of them.A factor in A LOT of people's decisions. I worked in an architects practice and they said there was simply no market for apartments. It was/is considered second-class accommmodation by most people.
Even if I accept the "A LOT", then it does not equal EVERYONE, and my objection earlier was the implication that it was a lifestyle choice for EVERYONE, or the later one that it was a lifestyle choice for everyone but farmers.
So - give or take a few percentages - we're both right. This doesn't, however, take from my original objection that it is not a lifestyle choice for everyone, which is still correct.
Also, re apartments; there is some truth in your argument, but again that generally goes back to bad planning and bad laws......if there were parks and facilities where kids could grow up, proper parking, and proper long-term leases, and ways of dealing with annoying neighbours or "management companies" that let common areas go to rack and ruin, then the "second-class" status of apartments might change.TBH services cost more to where you are though electricity etc so yes it does work both ways. I still don't see what your problem is with the changes the Greens want to bring in on septic tanks.
Odd, considering the ESRI report quoted says that the South-West is a net contributor.
And my point is that fining those who break the law and pollute is 100% fine by me; just don't add to my already OTT taxes as a considerate and law-abiding citizen.........especially when those taxes are going to pay massive expenses and payoffs and bailouts to those who don't deserve it.
Fine and jail the polluters - no problem. And use the money collected in the fines to pay the wages of the inspectors. Mission accomplished - 100% - with the cost allocated fairly and correctly.And you're hardly one to talk about "cheap dismissive digs" after your comment about the Greens and septic tanks. Don't be a hypocrite - or even worse, an indignant hypocrite.
I'll leave this one off by just saying that I'm not a hypocrite; any comment I passed re the Greens was based on observation of their actions; since you haven't witnessed my actions (and also aren't paying my wages) then your comparison above is not comparing like with like.
If and when I impose unfair taxes on you, then you can comment as you see fit.0 -
NewDubliner wrote: »The decentralisation project is ongoing, but at a slower pace & it was justified as a means of supporting rural towns that no longer have an economic reason to exist.
Well, if you have a car, you have to have it NCT'd? Same principle.
If you don't have a car (or septic tank) because you live in a well-served town, you don't have those costs. Lifestyle choice.
I am sure the citizens and business owners of Athlone, Killarney, Limerick, Longford, and Navan to name just a few, will be surprised to hear their towns have no economic reason to exist!0 -
To_be_confirmed wrote: »I think that there should be no inspections full stop, or not on the scale that would cost more to any taxpayer.
Well, "no cost to the taxpayer" is effectively the same as "no inspections", given that they cost money.
Is this a personal conviction based on anecdotal evidence, or is it one based on research which shows it to be true?As far as water pollution goes, I am convinced it is the farmers who are the real problem.
From this, it sounds anecdotal and aspirational...you've heard stories, and you hope that bad things don't happen...I've heard from several different ones by now, of how they had to release their slurry into a ditch at the bottom of a field. This was on the odd occasion where they weren't able to legally release due to weather etc. but they were unable to store anymore slurry. Also with septic tanks, the leakage is smaller, more likely to be diluted and will not (hopefully) be directly "running off" into a stream etc but will seep through topsoil and subsoil.0 -
You seem to have missed the last part of my post, Liam, where I stated that I'd readily agree that anyone being provided with a service such as water-supply or waste-management should have to pay for it.Liam Byrne wrote: »They HAVE paid for it; they paid to install the bloody thing, and they pay to empty it!!! Do city dwellers have to do this ? NO!!!
Either that, or when I said "anyone" you read or understood "anyone outside cities".
Indeed. They're being charged because sufficient numbers of their peers are not being responsible that they, as a group, merit regulation.If people are responsible and have it maintained and emptied, then they're being charged EXTRA for being responsible.
Its interesting that you seem to agree that there are people with dodgy ones out there, but thank a poster for saying to me that there shouldn't be inspections and that they don't believe there's a problem.If, on the other hand, they were inspected and those with dodgy ones were fined heavily, THAT would pay for the inspections.0 -
The SW includes the industrialised Limerick urban area (including, at the time, Dell).Liam Byrne wrote:Odd, considering the ESRI report quoted says that the South-West is a net contributor.
Then why did they so desperately seek the bail-out of jobs being taken away from Dublin and given to them? If those towns were economically viable, they'd generate their own jobs would would not pilfer them from other regions.bog master wrote: »I am sure the citizens and business owners of Athlone, Killarney, Limerick, Longford, and Navan to name just a few, will be surprised to hear their towns have no economic reason to exist!0 -
NewDubliner wrote: »If those towns were economically viable, they'd generate their own jobs would would not pilfer them from other regions.
Its probably just as well that economics isn't the sole driver of policy, though, isn't it.0 -
Well, "no cost to the taxpayer" is effectively the same as "no inspections", given that they cost money.
I'm sure you know as well as I do that he meant that whoever pollutes, gets fined, and THOSE FINES pay for the inspection scheme.
i.e. the polluter is a taxpayer too, but THEY pay.
Please don't spin what was suggested.Indeed. They're being charged because sufficient numbers of their peers are not being responsible that they, as a group, merit regulation.
And who, exactly, are "their peers" ? To me, "their peers" are the fellow polluters - no-one else.
Blanket proposals and obscure generalisations like this are, quite frankly, ridiculous. If the local drug dealer owns a BMW, and you own one too, is he "your peer" ? Are you somehow responsible for his actions because you own something the same as him, or live up the street from him ?
I'd personally suggest no, but it's not misrepresentation to suggest that your way of looking at the word "peer" means that he is "your peer" based on - your - ownership and/or living location criteria0 -
-
My parents live in south Wicklow and I agree entirely with everything that you've said -Good on ya!how many urban dwellers pay for their water, also the household waste, i have to pay for water, 2 bins are required by all waste collection services in my area, i do not complain about not having a bus service, etc, my family has lived in my dwelling house since at least 1880, if it was in an urban area i would be getting state aid to preserve it, the pot holes in our road requires filling by the residents, the local co. council area offices were replaced at a cost of 6m, no there are no grants advailable to the elderly or disabled cannot get a grant to improve their houses, or make necessary improvements, my area has 1 ONE windpowered generator, no thanks to the co.council planners no more can be erected, one thing the CHIEF SNOT has forgotten, all septic thanks built before 1960 are exempt from council control, i will say no more for the moment,0 -
Advertisement
-
I can't see any reason how it might do that in a practical sense so if you've got a personal view on how it might, I'd be really interested to hear it.NewDubliner wrote: »Which might explain the mess we're in.0 -
Simply that vote-catching, cronyism and parish-pump politics rather than the national interest have dictated how money is spent. This has resulted in a situation where urban areas are subsidising the unsustainable lifestyles of rural dwellers.I can't see any reason how it might do that in a practical sense so if you've got a personal view on how it might, I'd be really interested to hear it.0 -
No, I don't think it does.NewDubliner wrote: »Which might explain the mess we're in.
Economically speaking, you can justify just-about any atrocity.0 -
Liam...what was suggested had no detail whatsoever when I replied to it. Guessing what the poster was suggesting isn't spin.Liam Byrne wrote: »I'm sure you know as well as I do that he meant that whoever pollutes, gets fined, and THOSE FINES pay for the inspection scheme.
i.e. the polluter is a taxpayer too, but THEY pay.
Please don't spin what was suggested.
But lets look at your suggestion.
Judging from your reactions thus far, I'm guessing that you have a septic tank.
So the inspector comes to check it out, and finds that you have a tank installed, you seem to do what's required, but there's a leak...a crack in the tank which is causing it to leak.
I assume that in such a situation, you're quite happy that under your proposal you'll be hit with a massive fine, so that your genuine and honest oversight is properly punished, as you are one of the polluters that you want harshly dealt with?
Or am I spinning-by-guessing again? When you said that the polluter should pay, you did mean that, and not something else, right?
In terms, for example, of both being car-owners who need to pay insurancethen the answer is absolutely yes.Blanket proposals and obscure generalisations like this are, quite frankly, ridiculous. If the local drug dealer owns a BMW, and you own one too, is he "your peer" ?
I could go to my insurance company and tell them that its unfair that my premiums are so high...that I don't drive irresponsibly, and I shouldn't be held accountable that some nutters (and drug-dealers) happen to have the same car as me, resulting in higher premiums for me...but I wouldn't expect them to listen.
Again, using your well-chosen analagy, I'd point you at car-insurance and say....yes, to a certain extent, I pay for his actions.Are you somehow responsible for his actions because you own something the same as him,0 -
-
Judging from your reactions thus far, I'm guessing that you have a septic tank.
Interesting assumption. Believe it or not, I don't actually have to be a net beneficiary in order to be able to recognise what's fair and what's not.So the inspector comes to check it out, and finds that you have a tank installed, you seem to do what's required, but there's a leak...a crack in the tank which is causing it to leak.
I assume that in such a situation, you're quite happy that under your proposal you'll be hit with a massive fine, so that your genuine and honest oversight is properly punished, as you are one of the polluters that you want harshly dealt with?
Fair enough question; and similar to the structure of other fines, policies and the law, it would be nice if there were a structure that differentiated between genuine oversight and outright neglect.Or am I spinning-by-guessing again? When you said that the polluter should pay, you did mean that, and not something else, right?
Absolutely. And if the fine reflects the size of the oversight and/or crime, I couldn't see anyone objecting.
e.g. a tiny crack that's obviously a genuine oversight slaps you with a, say, €1,000 fine, while a massively neglected and overflowing, decrepid tank that hasn't been checked or maintained in 20 years slaps you with a €50,000 fine.In terms, for example, of both being car-owners who need to pay insurancethen the answer is absolutely yes.
Again, fair enough, although imposing the insurance onto the analogy does throw it slightly, because EVERYONE needs insurance.
Firstly, would you accept being called "his peer", particularly in a discussion that related to people neglecting their responsibilities ? I doubt it, to be honest.I could go to my insurance company and tell them that its unfair that my premiums are so high...that I don't drive irresponsibly, and I shouldn't be held accountable that some nutters (and drug-dealers) happen to have the same car as me, resulting in higher premiums for me...but I wouldn't expect them to listen.
Again, not quite the same parallel. The proposal is that they are imposing an EXTRA charge on you so, specifically so that they can come CHECK whether or not you're a drug-dealer; which you already know you're not.
In that scenario, I reckon that you WOULD object to the nonsensical extra charge, and would propose that they were entitled to check (because you had nothing to hide) and that if they encountered a dealer during the check, should fine THEM, and not YOU.0 -
NewDubliner wrote: »So it's an atrocity not to subsidise people living up the side of mountain who don't farm there?
I said that its probably a good thing that economics isn't the sole driver of policy.
I did not say that there are no decisions where economics should be the primary consideration.0 -
Everyone who owns a car needs car insurance.Liam Byrne wrote: »Again, fair enough, although imposing the insurance onto the analogy does throw it slightly, because EVERYONE needs insurance.
Everyone who owns a septic tank needs to have that tank regularly inspected.
I'm not convinced that I'm throwing anything slightly. I would argue, in fact, that the regular inspection is a form of insurance...it is ensuring that you are not inadvertantly causing significant environmental harm.
Similarly, just as one can argue that people in rural areas are forced to have septic tanks due to the lack of public sewage, one can equally argue that they are forced to have cars due to the lack of public transport.
As an owner of a certain make and model of car, I would have no issue in a discussion regarding owners of that make and model having said owners referred to as my peers. Some of them no doubt drive like lunatics. Some are presumably better drivers then me. In therms of the subject at hand, they would be my peers.Firstly, would you accept being called "his peer", particularly in a discussion that related to people neglecting their responsibilities ? I doubt it, to be honest.
The problem with this example, Liam, is that it suggests the only purpose of the proposed inspections are to find people who are deliberately polluting. In your case, its unlikely that I'm being charged to find out if I'm accidentally dealing drugs...whereas in the septic tank situation, I would argue that its essential that accidental leakage be identified.Again, not quite the same parallel. The proposal is that they are imposing an EXTRA charge on you so, specifically so that they can come CHECK whether or not you're a drug-dealer; which you already know you're not.
In effect, I am being asked to pay a fee so that - amongst other things - I can have the peace of mind of knowing that my septic tank is OK.
I would agree that in the situation where the only two possibilities are those who are not causing a problem and those who are intentionally causing a problem, it would be unfair to charge anyone but the offenders.In that scenario, I reckon that you WOULD object to the nonsensical extra charge, and would propose that they were entitled to check (because you had nothing to hide) and that if they encountered a dealer during the check, should fine THEM, and not YOU.
As we've both accepted, though, there are more than those two possibilities in the scenario that you're drawing a parallel, and the question really boild down to whether or not the honest, accidental offender should be treated as a criminal, or if the costs for such honest accidental offence be fairly split amongst all.
Leave aside the deliberate offenders, and look at what's left. The options are that everyone involved pays a little, or the unlucky few are charged a lot. People like yourself seem to side with the latter option. Me....I don't see any scandal with the well-established principle of the former being applied to this situation, as I believe it is a situation where that principle can be reasonably applied.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Thanks for the clarification.I said that its a good thing that its probably a good thing that economics isn't the sole driver of policy. I did not say that there are no decisions where economics should be the primary consideration.
I think we need to look carefully at tre VFM of transfers from urban to rural. That and examine carefully how well the rural community is respecting our natural heritage.0
Advertisement