Septic tank charges

MadsL

Sorry, was quoting you in support.

Question was for all the critics of the charges.

n97 mini

Welease wrote: »

The problem with terms like "vast majority" is that it immediately demonstrates that its not true in all cases... So there are people (and counties) that do cover the cost of local services and subsidise the costs of urban wastewater treatment

Fact remains that while a few high earning rural tax payers pay for the services they get and more, directly and indirectly, the vast vast majority do not, and are being subsidised. They are being subsidised by high earning rural tax payers, and urban tax payers.

Therefore on the whole, rural tax payers do no subsidise anything anywhere.

Welease

n97 mini wrote: »

Fact remains that while a few high earning rural tax payers pay for the services they get and more, directly and indirectly, the vast vast majority do not, and are being subsidised. They are being subsidised by high earning rural tax payers, and urban tax payers.

Therefore on the whole, rural tax payers do no subsidise anything anywhere.

Can you show me figures that demonstrate this fact? As far as I am aware, no such data exists to breakdown the revenue collection between rural and urban dwellers within a county, and no figures exist to demonstrate the breakdown of expenditure on services between urban and rural dwellers within a county..

So how can you claim a fact when no such data exists?

The tables produced by Scofflaw earlier demonstrate that many rural counties provide tax transfers to other counties, and would one assume those transfers would be used for waste management, thereby proving your "fact" are false.. Limerick and Galway receive tax transfers which could be/are taken from the "rural" transfer pot....

(Counties with net tax transfers to other counties - Dublin, Kilkenny, Laois, Kildare, Wicklow, Meath, Cork & Clare)

n97 mini

Welease wrote: »

As far as I am aware, no such data exists

It is a fact that urban by and large subsidises rural, for obvious reasons.

Welease wrote: »

The tables produced by Scofflaw earlier demonstrate that many rural counties provide tax transfers to other counties,

What's a "rural county"? All those counties which run a surplus have substantial urban economies.

Welease wrote: »

(Counties with net tax transfers to other counties - Dublin, Kilkenny, Laois, Kildare, Wicklow, Meath, Cork & Clare)

If you can show one of those counties is generating its wealth from the rural part of the county, you have a point.

Here's an example: Kildare. Two of the biggest contributors to the exchequer are Intel and HP. Both are in urban Kildare (Leixlip).

Welease

n97 mini wrote: »

It is a fact that urban by and large subsidises rural, for obvious reasons.


What's a "rural county"? All those counties which run a surplus have substantial urban economies.


If you can show one of those counties is generating its wealth from the rural part of the county, you have a point.

Here's an example: Kildare. Two of the biggest contributors to the exchequer are Intel and HP. Both are in urban Kildare (Leixlip).

In each and every case you have listed above.. "fact" would require you to demonstrate that you have data which shows the breakdown between the rural and urban locations on revenue collected and spent..

If you have the data to demonstrate this "fact", then please post it here..

n97 mini

Welease wrote: »

In each and every case you have listed above.. "fact" would require you to demonstrate that you have data which shows the breakdown between the rural and urban locations on revenue collected and spent..

On the contrary, you are requiring data to back up something which is common sense. To try to argue that rural subsidises anything that urban gets is quite silly.

Welease wrote: »

If you have the data to demonstrate this "fact", then please post it here..

If you can show one of those "rural counties" is generating its wealth from the rural part of the county, you have a point.

Welease

n97 mini wrote: »

On the contrary, you are requiring data to back up something which is common sense. To try to argue that rural subsidises anything that urban gets is quite silly..

No I am asking for data to clarify your fact.. Claiming it's common sense doesn't cut it. You either have the data or you don't..

I could easily claim that my rural area has high value housing, high income families and no services provided bar the road outside which is in shocking state.
Our local urban area has roads, schools, libraries, swimming pool, council facilities/offices, waste treatment, kids play areas, civic ameniety centre, deprived area funded events etc.. and a major unemployment problem..

So who is funding who?

n97 mini wrote: »

If you can show one of those "rural counties" is generating its wealth from the rural part of the county, you have a point.

If I was claiming such, then yes the onus would be on me to provide the data.. But I am not.. I am questioning your "facts", becuase as far as I am aware you have no data to support such a claim, I don't think the onus is on me to provide data to dispute your claim when we both know no such data exists to prove either case.

MadsL

I am still gobsmacked that the 50 euro or is it now 5 euro registrations charges are causing such bile.

How can you be so petty over this? Seriously?

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Folks, if you want to debate who subsidizes who, I suggest that you start a new thread on urban/rural financing - one, I might add, that actually includes some data, rather than entrenched opinions.

In the meantime, let's get back on topic.

Pete_Cavan

Welease wrote: »

I support a "polluter pays" policy, which is why I also believe that public systems should also have a levy attached (which is charged to connected householders) to pay for the inspection/upkeep of their systems.

Except householders connected to the public sewers are not the only polluters (because rural householders also pollute when using the public sewers) and therefore should not be the only ones subject to the charge. The "polluter pays" principle says everyone should pay this charge (because anyone who uses public sewers, regardless of where they live, pollutes) and the easiest way to do this is through general taxation, ie. the current situation.

Welease

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Except householders connected to the public sewers are not the only polluters (because rural householders also pollute when using the public sewers) and therefore should not be the only ones subject to the charge. The "polluter pays" principle says everyone should pay this charge (because anyone who uses public sewers, regardless of where they live, pollutes) and the easiest way to do this is through general taxation, ie. the current situation.

But when a rural householder is using a public system.. one wouold expect the vast majority of use (which would be minimal in comparison) would be in commercial premesis which pay rates etc... the % usage in private housing would be minimal compared to the owners of those dwellings..

Again, I have no issue with septic tank owners having to pay the costs for the upkeep of their systems, but I do strongly believe that those connected to public systems should pay for the upgrades necessary to the public systems in order to meet EU regulations. I also find it somewhat hypocritical of those who maintain septic owners should meet the full costs of their systems, but refute any suggestion that they should also meet the full costs of providing their public system. I do however tend to favour a move to more consumption based taxation model, as maybe then people would understand the real cost of the systems that they demand and take for granted.

Edit - I am not sure if this continued discussion is exactly what Southsiderosie warned against.. So I'm going to stop posting on this now..

Godge

Welease wrote: »

But when a rural householder is using a public system.. one wouold expect the vast majority of use (which would be minimal in comparison) would be in commercial premesis which pay rates etc... the % usage in private housing would be minimal compared to the owners of those dwellings..

Again, I have no issue with septic tank owners having to pay the costs for the upkeep of their systems, but I do strongly believe that those connected to public systems should pay for the upgrades necessary to the public systems in order to meet EU regulations. I also find it somewhat hypocritical of those who maintain septic owners should meet the full costs of their systems, but refute any suggestion that they should also meet the full costs of providing their public system. I do however tend to favour a move to more consumption based taxation model, as maybe then people would understand the real cost of the systems that they demand and take for granted.

Edit - I am not sure if this continued discussion is exactly what Southsiderosie warned against.. So I'm going to stop posting on this now..

I would be happy too if we moved to a consumption based model and that the costs of consumption were applied retrospectively at today's cost. For example, the cost of provision of broadband to an area (rural or urban) should be divided by the number of residents in the particular area and a levy placed on each household. Ditto electricity. When those two have emptied the rural areas, we can then discuss water and sewerage.

oscarBravo

Godge wrote: »

When those two have emptied the rural areas...

Why is emptying rural areas a good idea?

n97 mini

Godge wrote: »

I would be happy too if we moved to a consumption based model and that the costs of consumption were applied retrospectively at today's cost.

I would too. My road frontage is 10 metres wide... the road itself is concrete and is unaffected by weather, so I would be delighted to pay for the maintenance by myself.

Otoh, I have a mate with 100 metres of tar mac road frontage (shared with 9 other neighbours on a 1km stretch of road). The road is in bits from two bad winters, but he wouldn't dream of putting his hand in his pocket to pay for repairs. Instead he's on to every local public representative he can find to get someone else to pay.

n97 mini

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why is emptying rural areas a good idea?

Sustainability.

oscarBravo

n97 mini wrote: »

Sustainability.

High rise tower blocks for all, so.

Liam Byrne

n97 mini wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

People already pay for the installation, maintenance and emptying of their own tanks, while also paying tax towards the urban ones.

In the vast majority of case the tax does not even cover local services, like roads, schools, street lighting, and so on.

Please, once and for all can we stop this nonsense that rural septic tank owners' tax goes to subsidise urban wastewater treatment.

Please, once and for all can we stop ignoring the fact that tax levels across the country are the same and that people in rural areas don't get the same services ON ANY LEVEL.

And - given the usual strawman retort - can we then write in stone the fact that WE ACCEPT THAT; we are just objecting to even more disparity and charges.

Finally can we accept that roads are required for access to deliver milk and various other thing from farms and the fact is that additional homes on that road makes it MORE viable ( ironically this argument is only used by the urbanites in relation to their multiple access roads and the fact is never acknowledged for the equivalent rural setup / argument )

EDIT : apologies - only saw the mod directive now

Tipp Man

MadsL wrote: »

I am still gobsmacked that the 50 euro or is it now 5 euro registrations charges are causing such bile.

How can you be so petty over this? Seriously?

Its not the charge people are worried about - its the potential cost of repairing or putting in a new system that people are worried about if they fail the exam.

Especially when the councils themselves are still the biggest polluters in this country and have not sorted out their own public sewers yet

It's the hypocracy that the proble

Scofflaw

Tipp Man wrote: »

Its not the charge people are worried about - its the potential cost of repairing or putting in a new system that people are worried about if they fail the exam.

Especially when the councils themselves are still the biggest polluters in this country and have not sorted out their own public sewers yet

It's the hypocracy that the proble

So you'll campaign for the rural towns to pay the tax necessary to fund the councils cleaning up their public sewers? I look forward to seeing that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tipp Man

Scofflaw wrote: »

So you'll campaign for the rural towns to pay the tax necessary to fund the councils cleaning up their public sewers? I look forward to seeing that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So let me get this straight

You think it is ok that I should have to pay inspection charges (and possible large upgrade costs) to have my waste water dealt with

While you (or all urban people to be more general) should not have to pay any inspection or ugrade costs when it is known that the urban sewer problem is bigger than the septic tank problem???

n97 mini

Tipp Man wrote: »

So let me get this straight

You think it is ok that I should have to pay inspection charges (and possible large upgrade costs) to have my waste water dealt with

While you (or all urban people to be more general) should not have to pay any inspection or ugrade costs when it is known that the urban sewer problem is bigger than the septic tank problem???

Certainly in the bigger urban centres the taxes gathered in those centres covers the entire cost of the provision of services in those centres, and more. That's why we don't need to pay extra for public waste water treatment: it's because we already have paid for it.

If 10% of septic tanks need re-mediation, that's over 40,000 tanks. If the average cost was €1,000 then that's €40 million -- a figure which is unfair to burden urban dwellers with.

MadsL

Tipp Man wrote: »

While you (or all urban people to be more general) should not have to pay any inspection or ugrade costs when it is known that the urban sewer problem is bigger than the septic tank problem???

You are aware that businesses in urban areas pay rates, so the cost of repairs is covered by rates paid by businesses frequented by urban dwellers.

Why would additional charges be necessary in your view?

County councils will be forced by EU law to improve standards, and in fact the EPA report that says half of systems are substandard that everyone is spouting to beat the councils with states the vast improvements in monitoring that have been made in recent years.
Since the last report, there has been significant improvement in the monitoring of waste water treatment plants. In 2007, 112 plants did not take sufficient samples; this figure has reduced to 38 in the current report.

“We are pleased to see this increase in monitoring – that was an area we highlighted in the last report. The issues we are highlighting today, in particular, operation and maintenance, now need to be prioritised in the coming years,” Dara Lynott concluded.

If monitoring is important for urban areas, then naturally inspection is important for rural areas on individual tanks.

Bear in mind the EU Water Framework Directive requires member states to take a holistic approach to managing their water resources. It applies to rivers, lakes, groundwater, estuaries and coastal waters. Member States must aim to achieve good status in all waters by 2015 and must ensure that status does not deteriorate in any waters.

Therefore we cannot simply wait until urban councils are in compliance, it has to be done hand-in-hand.

Liam Byrne

n97 mini wrote: »

Certainly in the bigger urban centres the taxes gathered in those centres covers the entire cost of the provision of services in those centres, and more. That's why we don't need to pay extra for public waste water treatment: it's because we already have paid for it.

Which "we" is that ? The one that is a mere sub-set or the whole country ?

Because I'm paying the same income tax and VAT and road tax and USC as any urban dweller, therefore I'm paying for the above too.

Not only that, but for years urban dwellers were getting their bins collected as part of their tax while I was paying for mine (something I was unaware of until the so-called "national" radio stations suddenly started complaining about the "introduction" of bin charges).

n97 mini

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Which "we" is that ? The one that is a mere sub-set or the whole country ?

Because I'm paying the same income tax and VAT and road tax and USC as any urban dweller, therefore I'm paying for the above too.

Do you feel your income tax completely covers the costs of maintaining roads, schools, street lighting etc in your area?

Because my area is quite densely populated, has thousands of tax payers per square mile, so I'd be pretty sure we have paid for everything we get. Then I could talk about the hundreds of businesses in the area that are paying rates.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Let me clarify one more time: this thread is about waste systems. It is not about who paid more for bins, schools, whatever. I undertand that there is a rural/urban issue here, but it needs to be discussed within the context of the waste management issue.

Making sweeping claims without any kind of backup doesn't help either.

There won't be any more warnings.

MadsL

Septic Tank guidelines published...

http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Water/WaterServices/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,29546,en.pdf

Sponge Bob

Genius. So an average house with a septic tank now has to desludge once a year.

The combined total of all the treatment systems in the country are collectively incapable of dealing with urban waste water at present ....so where exactly does this sludge go????

Welease

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Genius. So an average house with a septic tank now has to desludge once a year.

The combined total of all the treatment systems in the country are collectively incapable of dealing with urban waste water at present ....so where exactly does this sludge go????

No.. inspection once a year to determine if it needs to be desludged.. Only desludge when required.

"The frequency of emptying of sewage sludge from a treatment system will vary depending on a variety of factors – these would include the number of persons occupying the house(s) discharging to the system, the capacity of the system and the treatment process within the system, etc. The carrying out of an examination of the system (at least once a year), including dipping the tank, is the most practical method of determining if sludge needs to be removed from the system"

"Because the minimum frequency for de-sludging will depend on a variety of different factors, the regulations will not specify a standard minimum period for de-sludging"

Appendix 1 has an estimate of frequency depending on tank size and people, and in some cases its estimating a desludge every 10 years.

Sponge Bob

"Average" like I said has 3 people and a washing machine , make that once a year. 10 years on a holiday home...maybe.

Welease

Sponge Bob wrote: »

"Average" like I said has 3 people and a washing machine , make that once a year. 10 years on a holiday home...maybe.

But if thats what your tank vs your usage supported before then nothing changes.. There is no specific requirement to have it desludged any more or less than was previously done (within accepted healthy boundaries)