Septic tank charges

murphaph

waster81 wrote: »

But you're more than happy for rural families to subsidise urban families

Who pays for the upkeep of urban water systems - it comes from all taxpayers

Given your stance then urban dwellers should pay for their water systems

FFS when will this silly nonsense of rural dwellers subsidising urban dwellers stop. Urban areas generate more taxes than they receive in social transfers. Rural areas generate less in taxes than they receive in social transfers.

URBAN AREAS COVER THEIR OWN COSTS COMPLETELY AND THEN SEND THE REST TO RURAL AREAS TO BE SPENT THERE!!!

Pete_Cavan

waster81 wrote: »

The point is that urban dwellers have had their home sewerage systems paid for by all taxpayers.

How exactly are those living in the countryside benefiting from this?

You dont have to live in an urban area to use the urban sewerage system. You are not confined to using the toilets in your house only. If you live in a rural area but work in an urban area, or go to a pub/restaurant in a town, you get to use the public sewerage infrastructure, therefore those living in the countryside are benefiting (unless we stop them from using toilets connected to public sewers!). Why should all taxpayers pay for domestic septic tanks which are exclusively for the benefit of those using the house connected to the septic tank?

Anyway, this argument about rural dwellers paying for urban dwellers sewerage systems is irrelevant as most of the tax revenue in this country is derived from taxes on income, on consumer spending (VAT), and company profits, most of which is generated in urban areas. Also, there are commercial rates paid by businesses in urban areas which contribute towards the urban sewers.

Sierra Oscar

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

You dont have to live in an urban area to use the urban sewerage system. You are not confined to using the toilets in your house only. If you live in a rural area but work in an urban area, or go to a pub/restaurant in a town, you get to use the public sewerage infrastructure, therefore those living in the countryside are benefiting (unless we stop them from using toilets connected to public sewers!). Why should all taxpayers pay for domestic septic tanks which are exclusively for the benefit of those using the house connected to the septic tank?

Anyway, this argument about rural dwellers paying for urban dwellers sewerage systems is irrelevant as most of the tax revenue in this country is derived from taxes on income, on consumer spending (VAT), and company profits, most of which is generated in urban areas. Also, there are commercial rates paid by businesses in urban areas which contribute towards the urban sewers.

The issue here however is that we are referring to households, not commercial premises.

Comes down to this again - why should rural households expect to subsidise the sewage schemes for urban households? Also, all households are required to pay the household charge which is to pay for the waste disposal and water supply services provided by local authorities - even though many rurual households have to provide their own septic tank systems and pay for their own water schemes.

Pete_Cavan

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The issue here however is that we are referring to households, not commercial premises.

Comes down to this again - why should rural households expect to subsidise the sewage schemes for urban households?

But it does not come down to that, public sewers are not limited to domestic houses only, they serve commercial premises (which generate tax revenue as well as paying rates) also.

waster81

murphaph wrote: »

FFS when will this silly nonsense of rural dwellers subsidising urban dwellers stop. Urban areas generate more taxes than they receive in social transfers. Rural areas generate less in taxes than they receive in social transfers.

URBAN AREAS COVER THEIR OWN COSTS COMPLETELY AND THEN SEND THE REST TO RURAL AREAS TO BE SPENT THERE!!!

Can you direct me to those figures to back this statement up?

6480

every town in the country that seen a surge in the numbers of houses built during the boom years would not now have a sewage plant able to cope with the extra volume

Sierra Oscar

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

But it does come down to that, public sewers are not limited to domestic houses only, they serve commercial premises (which generate tax revenue as well as paying rates) also.

Which is perfectly acceptable, but the fact of the matter is that rural households are paying for the waste disposal of urban households as it is - this subsidy benefits individuals, not wider society. Therefore one can question as to why the rural household does not get any sort of return from their taxation in regards waste disposal.

Let it be fair - it works both ways, or else urban households can bloody well pay for the implementation and maintenance of their own urban sewage schemes and alleviate the taxation burden on the rest of us. It is easy to distinguish between household's and commercial premises, so we can have a targeted charge for urban households if needs be.

mascaput

jackiebaron wrote: »

But couldn't you just beat the crap out of him claiming that he was trespassing. When they (the courts) claim that he presented his ID you could simply say that you can't read. :pac:

The issues involved here is that the official must show you his or her ID before entering onto the farm premises. If you do not ask for it yet admit them, then you have, by tacit approval, granted them permission to enter. Failure on your part, for whatever reason or lack thereof, involves you in a contract of acceptance with that agency. They know that they must show their ID or else they have no authority, so why would you not verify it and accept or not? This acceptance is a non-exercising of your own authority in favour or another, by giving authority over your being by proxy.
I'm not saying that you have to get nasty, unhelpful, stupid, but you should be aware of what you are doing and the cost of doing so, before you engage into an implicit contract that may lead to your detriment. If you are happy to see them there and there is a benefit to you, then that's fine, and if not then you have to weigh up the pros and cons.

The problem with most people, and especially the populace of this country, is that they think that they don't have the rights or the responsibility to question authority, be it from Government, priest or banker, all part of the Unholy Trinity that rule over you by your ritualised acceptance that you should be grateful for being told exactly where you fit into the greater scheme of things. The question is, who designed the scheme and what is the future cost of living in it? If we refuse to work that out, then we deserve what we don't get, don't we?

Scofflaw

waster81 wrote: »

Can you direct me to those figures to back this statement up?

Having done this exercise before - these are the 2007 figures:

County|CAP|Recipients|Per Recipient|Pop|CAP/capita|Personal Tax/Capt|Total Tax €m|Transfers €m|Net €m|Net/Capita|Net + EU
Carlow|37780624.3|2040|18519.91|45845|824.09|1355|190|244|54|1177.88|2001.98
Cavan|67061232.83|5185|12933.7|56416|1188.69|1564|253|273|20|354.51|1543.2
Clare|84633475.03|6689|12652.63|103333|819.04|1485|496|463|-33|-319.36|499.68
Cork|237628799.9|14387|16516.91|448181|530.21|1676|2306|2205|-101|-225.36|304.85
Donegal|96295832.23|8777|10971.38|137383|700.93|620|461|733|272|1979.87|2680.8
Dublin|23390165.7|869|26916.19|1122600|20.84|4289|7805|5404|-2401|-2138.78|-2117.95
Galway|151082275.76|13403|11272.27|208826|723.48|1964|1009|1071|62|296.9|1020.38
Kerry|110172226.36|8532|12912.83|132424|831.97|2447|499|612|113|853.32|1685.29
Kildare|41508533.31|2355|17625.7|163995|253.11|1626|1131|735|-396|-2414.71|-2161.6
Kilkenny|74607598.46|3651|20434.84|80421|927.71|1987|373|364|-9|-111.91|815.8
Laois|51015041.05|2887|17670.61|58732|868.61|609|284|265|-19|-323.5|545.1
Leitrim|39208803.34|3987|9834.16|25815|1518.84|2845|107|140|33|1278.33|2797.16
Limerick|77978817.76|5754|13552.11|175529|444.25|1817|875|953|78|444.37|888.62
Longford|33320587.99|2651|12569.06|31127|1070.47|944|135|177|42|1349.31|2419.78
Louth|26880258.45|1679|16009.68|101802|264.04|1273|472|528|56|550.09|814.13
Mayo|119112211.99|12312|9674.48|117428|1014.34|840|452|580|128|1090.03|2104.37
Meath|64919345.69|3823|16981.26|133936|484.7|1204|935|557|-378|-2822.24|-2337.54
Monaghan|54120148.48|4283|12636.04|52772|1025.55|865|217|246|29|549.53|1575.08
Offaly|49969431.31|3012|16590.12|63702|784.42|1995|278|302|24|376.75|1161.18
Roscommon|66381705.75|5924|11205.55|53803|1233.79|547|226|247|21|390.31|1624.1
Sligo|44541636.53|4440|10031.9|58178|765.61|1681|262|284|22|378.15|1143.76
Tipperary|144473163.12|7825|18463.02|140281|1029.88|927|613|699|86|613.06|1642.94
Waterford|55091572.69|2661|20703.33|101518|542.68|1277|470|518|48|472.82|1015.5
Westmeath|54058614.37|3521|15353.2|72027|750.53|6833|338|356|18|249.91|1000.44
Wexford|84120094.78|4565|18427.18|116543|721.79|937|503|629|126|1081.15|1802.94
Wicklow|38283190.87|2214|17291.41|114719|333.71|1274|717|512|-205|-1786.98|-1453.26

Those include the EU's CAP payments. A positive figure means a net recipient, negative a net donor, so Dubliners contributed €2117.95 per capita, while Donegal people received €2680.8 per capita. Dublin produced a total tax take of €7.8bn, and received back €5.4bnin various transfers, so it contributed a net of €2.4bn.

There would be patterns within each county, too, of course, and within the urban areas - Dublin's urban poor soak up most of the transfer payments in Dublin, for example, which is how the Kildare & Meath figures wind up higher despite lower tax takes. The counties around Dublin primarily produce taxes through personal rather than business taxation, and most of that will actually be earned in Dublin.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

murphaph wrote: »

waster81 wrote: »

But you're more than happy for rural families to subsidise urban families

Who pays for the upkeep of urban water systems - it comes from all taxpayers

Given your stance then urban dwellers should pay for their water systems

FFS when will this silly nonsense of rural dwellers subsidising urban dwellers stop. Urban areas generate more taxes than they receive in social transfers. Rural areas generate less in taxes than they receive in social transfers.

URBAN AREAS COVER THEIR OWN COSTS COMPLETELY AND THEN SEND THE REST TO RURAL AREAS TO BE SPENT THERE!!!

And if the rest of us had been forced to move to cities then prices for housing and apartments in said cities would have doubled due to demand.

So which would you prefer ? Pay a million for a bedsit next door to someone who didn't want to be there or allow people to live in the countryside and treat them equally ?

mikom

People tend to forget that rural areas built and paid for those cities.
Just because you have an iPhone it does not mean you are not a few steps away from thinnin' turnips and footin' turf.
And back to it you will go to if things continue the way they are going.

mistermouse

A little off point, but

Rural Gombeen politicians helped get us into the financial mess also and rural dwellers may find themselves being penalised now for poor planning and the costs racked up by politicians they voted in for years for pet projects

Both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael would also have very strong rural support over the years so rural dwellers may start to rethink their political support from here on in.

meglome

mikom wrote: »

People tend to forget that rural areas built and paid for those cities.

Huh?

mikom wrote: »

Just because you have an iPhone it does not mean you are not a few steps away from thinnin' turnips and footin' turf.

And that's related to people in Dublin paying most of the tax how?

mikom wrote: »

And back to it you will go to if things continue the way they are going.

Not exaggerated at all. Won't hear of it.

"All Irish people believe that a man's house is his castle. It is morally unjust and unfair to tax a person's home"
Enda Kenny in the Dail (1994)

Can I assume by this, that when faced by changing circumstances, you haven't changed your position on anything for the last 17 years?

Sponge Bob

mistermouse wrote: »

Rural Gombeen politicians helped get us into the financial mess also

Bertie is a rural gombeen now, is he??? :cool:

Sponge Bob

I made your table Sortable and less crap ....it is bloody confusing on the flat.

This done by editing the first line only to add these elements. The rest of it is the same.

Syntax explanation.

http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3250

County|CAP|Recipients|Per Recipient|Pop|CAP/capita|Personal Tax/Capt|Total Tax €m|Transfers €m|Net €m|Net/Capita|Net + EU

Scofflaw wrote: »

Having done this exercise before - these are the 2007 figures:
County|CAP|Recipients|Per Recipient|Pop|CAP/capita|Personal Tax/Capt|Total Tax €m|Transfers €m|Net €m|Net/Capita|Net + EU

Carlow|37780624.3|2040|18519.91|45845|824.09|1355|190|244|54|1177.88|2001.98
Cavan|67061232.83|5185|12933.7|56416|1188.69|1564|253|273|20|354.51|1543.2
Clare|84633475.03|6689|12652.63|103333|819.04|1485|496|463|-33|-319.36|499.68
Cork|237628799.9|14387|16516.91|448181|530.21|1676|2306|2205|(101)|-225.36|304.85
Donegal|96295832.23|8777|10971.38|137383|700.93|620|461|733|272|1979.87|2680.8
Dublin|23390165.7|869|26916.19|1122600|20.84|4289|7805|5404|-2401|-2138.78|-2117.95
Galway|151082275.76|13403|11272.27|208826|723.48|1964|1009|1071|62|296.9|1020.38
Kerry|110172226.36|8532|12912.83|132424|831.97|2447|499|612|113|853.32|1685.29
Kildare|41508533.31|2355|17625.7|163995|253.11|1626|1131|735|-396|-2414.71|-2161.6
Kilkenny|74607598.46|3651|20434.84|80421|927.71|1987|373|364|-9|-111.91|815.8
Laois|51015041.05|2887|17670.61|58732|868.61|609|284|265|-19|-323.5|545.1
Leitrim|39208803.34|3987|9834.16|25815|1518.84|2845|107|140|33|1278.33|2797.16
Limerick|77978817.76|5754|13552.11|175529|444.25|1817|875|953|78|444.37|888.62
Longford|33320587.99|2651|12569.06|31127|1070.47|944|135|177|42|1349.31|2419.78
Louth|26880258.45|1679|16009.68|101802|264.04|1273|472|528|56|550.09|814.13
Mayo|119112211.99|12312|9674.48|117428|1014.34|840|452|580|128|1090.03|2104.37
Meath|64919345.69|3823|16981.26|133936|484.7|1204|935|557|-378|-2822.24|-2337.54
Monaghan|54120148.48|4283|12636.04|52772|1025.55|865|217|246|29|549.53|1575.08
Offaly|49969431.31|3012|16590.12|63702|784.42|1995|278|302|24|376.75|1161.18
Roscommon|66381705.75|5924|11205.55|53803|1233.79|547|226|247|21|390.31|1624.1
Sligo|44541636.53|4440|10031.9|58178|765.61|1681|262|284|22|378.15|1143.76
Tipperary|144473163.12|7825|18463.02|140281|1029.88|927|613|699|86|613.06|1642.94
Waterford|55091572.69|2661|20703.33|101518|542.68|1277|470|518|48|472.82|1015.5
Westmeath|54058614.37|3521|15353.2|72027|750.53|6833|338|356|18|249.91|1000.44
Wexford|84120094.78|4565|18427.18|116543|721.79|937|503|629|126|1081.15|1802.94
Wicklow|38283190.87|2214|17291.41|114719|333.71|1274|717|512|-205|-1786.98|-1453.26
Those include the EU's CAP payments. A positive figure means a net recipient

HTH

Welease

Scofflaw wrote: »

Having done this exercise before - these are the 2007 figures:

There would be patterns within each county, too, of course, and within the urban areas - Dublin's urban poor soak up most of the transfer payments in Dublin, for example, which is how the Kildare & Meath figures wind up higher despite lower tax takes. The counties around Dublin primarily produce taxes through personal rather than business taxation, and most of that will actually be earned in Dublin.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So the data is actually contrary to the Dublin transfers to everyone line spouted in here all the time..

Septic tank owners in places like Meath, Kildare, Laois, Clare, Wicklow etc etc.. do actually pay for their own systems AND for public based systems (as much as anyone can tell because it all goes into a central pot)...

Scofflaw

Welease wrote: »

So the data is actually contrary to the Dublin transfers to everyone line spouted in here all the time..

Septic tank owners in places like Meath, Kildare, Laois, Clare, Wicklow etc etc.. do actually pay for their own systems AND for public based systems (as much as anyone can tell because it all goes into a central pot)...

Certainly there's no truth in the simplistic notion that Dublin simply pays for everyone else. However, what has mostly been claimed is that the urban areas pay for the rest, not that Dublin alone does.

And there's also no "etc etc". Meath, Kildare, Clare, Cork, and Wicklow are the only places outside Dublin which are net contributors (Laois is in balance) - and all of those are connected to urban areas. Meath, Kildare, and Wicklow only make net payments because of money earned in Dublin - most of their tax input comes from income tax on wages earned in Dublin, and the spending of the same wages is mostly what supports business in those areas.

Same goes for Cork. Clare mostly depends on Limerick and the Shannon region - I somehow doubt the earnings of Lisdoonvarna is what makes it a net contributor.

The reason for adding CAP, by the way, is that Ireland pays into the EU through two mechanisms, VAT and a GNI-based payment, and receives back from the EU primarily (but not only) through CAP. The urban areas generate most of the payment to the EU, the rural areas receive most of the payment from the EU, so there's another layer of urban-rural transfers there.

So the answer is basically "no" - you're making a spurious claim that there are several more counties than you listed off, which there aren't, and using it to attack a straw man argument. The rural areas of Ireland are effectively being subsidised by the urban areas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tipp Man

What about the huge resource that is water which the urban areas take from the rural areas without paying (directly) the rural areas for? That is a resource belonging to rural areas which urban areas get the benefit of. If Dublin for instance was to pay for every gallon of water it takes from Wicklow then Wicklow would be a very wealthy county. Or when they start piping water from the Shannon, then that is a midlands resource unpaid for by Dublin

I am in no way advocating that this should happen but it is a bit too simple to say that the urban areas are the net contributors while the rural areas are net benificaries

Scofflaw

Tipp Man wrote: »

What about the huge resource that is water which the urban areas take from the rural areas without paying (directly) the rural areas for? That is a resource belonging to rural areas which urban areas get the benefit of. If Dublin for instance was to pay for every gallon of water it takes from Wicklow then Wicklow would be a very wealthy county. Or when they start piping water from the Shannon, then that is a midlands resource unpaid for by Dublin

I am in no way advocating that this should happen but it is a bit too simple to say that the urban areas are the net contributors while the rural areas are net benificaries

If Wicklow's taxes had paid for the infrastructure that allows "Wicklow" water to be sent to Dublin, or Wicklow people had to squeeze the clouds themselves, you'd have a point - but since Dublin's taxes almost certainly paid for it, the rain falls by itself without any work by Wicklow people, and Wicklow has no use for the water itself (whereas Dublin could certainly use its own taxes), I don't think it really stands up.

Seriously, though, it's a good general point in respect of resources, but it doesn't hold up in respect of money, which seems to be what the argument revolves around.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Welease

Scofflaw wrote: »

So the answer is basically "no" - you're making a spurious claim that there are several more counties than you listed off, which there aren't, and using it to attack a straw man argument. The rural areas of Ireland are effectively being subsidised by the urban areas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The etc etc was not an attempt at a spurious claim.. it was

a) a mistake as I had only quickly reviewed the list provided, so apologies for that.. but more importantly
b) an understanding that once again, using high level averages per area proves little in terms of who pays what, when people try and use that for justification for rural dwellers to carry the full cost of this change..
It takes no account what an individual pays via taxation.. so can a low income urban earner claim to be subsidising a high income rural dweller (especially where that rural dweller lives in a net contributor country)? That is essentially the argument I am being presented with as justification.. and to me it is somewhat hollow..

In regards to the claim of urban vs rural contribution.. Can I see the data for this? The data provided is county by county but gives no indication of the rural vs urban collection and usage of taxes..

Tipp Man

Scofflaw wrote: »

If Wicklow's taxes had paid for the infrastructure that allows "Wicklow" water to be sent to Dublin, or Wicklow people had to squeeze the clouds themselves, you'd have a point - but since Dublin's taxes almost certainly paid for it, the rain falls by itself without any work by Wicklow people, and Wicklow has no use for the water itself (whereas Dublin could certainly use its own taxes), I don't think it really stands up.

Seriously, though, it's a good general point in respect of resources, but it doesn't hold up in respect of money, which seems to be what the argument revolves around.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The infrastructure is only the means to get the resource to where it is needed, the same as a gas or oil pipeline. So the cost of the infrastructure is irrelevant to the natural resource.

And you don't need to squeeze clouds;) or work for a resource, more often than not they are natural occurrences.

If there was a drought in the UK for example and they paid for a pipe from London to the river Shannon, would you not charge them for the water that was sent to London??

the only reason it doesn't hold up in respect of money is because currently the urban areas are not paying the rural areas for some of the resources that they are using from the rural areas. Just because it is not actually paid for doesn't mean the benefit of the resource should not be accounted for

Scofflaw

Welease wrote: »

The etc etc was not an attempt at a spurious claim.. it was

a) a mistake as I had only quickly reviewed the list provided, so apologies for that.. but more importantly

Fair enough - but it is important.

Welease wrote: »

b) an understanding that once again, using high level averages per area proves little in terms of who pays what, when people try and use that for justification for rural dwellers to carry the full cost of this change..
It takes no account what an individual pays via taxation.. so can a low income urban earner claim to be subsidising a high income rural dweller (especially where that rural dweller lives in a net contributor country)? That is essentially the argument I am being presented with as justification.. and to me it is somewhat hollow..

I take your point, but it's largely irrelevant, again, because nobody is claiming that low-income urban dwellers are paying for high-income rural dwellers. What was claimed was that urban areas pay for rural ones, and the high-level averages work fine for that claim.

Welease wrote: »

In regards to the claim of urban vs rural contribution.. Can I see the data for this? The data provided is county by county but gives no indication of the rural vs urban collection and usage of taxes..

Unfortunately, the data was in county by county format. No breakdown was given as to, say, whether Letterkenny is a net contributor or not. I'd love to have access to such data.

However, the pattern is extremely clear - the major urban areas and their commuter belts are the net contributory areas.

For the original data source...whoo, it was quite some while back, a couple of years ago at least. I can hunt around, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sponge Bob

id say cso incomes data by county and dept of ag stats. incomes data runs around 2-3 years behind.

Scofflaw

Tipp Man wrote: »

The infrastructure is only the means to get the resource to where it is needed, the same as a gas or oil pipeline. So the cost of the infrastructure is irrelevant to the natural resource.

And you don't need to squeeze clouds;) or work for a resource, more often than not they are natural occurrences.

The first point and the second contradict each other - without the infrastructure, the Wicklow water would be running off to sea. So work does go into making Wicklow's rainfall a usable resource. That's the same argument as for water charges - the water needs to be collected, treated, and piped. The work in this case is paid for by Dublin, while Wicklow does nothing.

Tipp Man wrote: »

If there was a drought in the UK for example and they paid for a pipe from London to the river Shannon, would you not charge them for the water that was sent to London??

I would, but primarily because we need that water ourselves, or are likely to in the near future. If they wanted to use water from an area where the resource was not used, however - let's say piping it from the Irish Mournes - the charge would be at most nominal.

Tipp Man wrote: »

the only reason it doesn't hold up in respect of money is because currently the urban areas are not paying the rural areas for some of the resources that they are using from the rural areas. Just because it is not actually paid for doesn't mean the benefit of the resource should not be accounted for

Not really - things get monetised when they become scarce resources, either because of supply problems or because they're demanded locally. Wicklow's water isn't monetised because it isn't a scarce resource - if it becomes one, it probably will be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Welease

Scofflaw wrote: »

Fair enough - but it is important.

Agreed.. hence my apology

Scofflaw wrote: »

I take your point, but it's largely irrelevant, again, because nobody is claiming that low-income urban dwellers are paying for high-income rural dwellers. What was claimed was that urban areas pay for rural ones, and the high-level averages work fine for that claim.

But they are.. Many posts saying why should I pay for your septic tanks etc. Pete_Cavan and others claim no benefit to them, so why should they pay.
I agree it's irrelevant.. but equally so is the claim that someone is paying for my tank with nothing in return.. I can and do pay for many services which I do not receive, as will continue to do so as we don't run a consumption based taxation system. I raise the point to show the fallacy of their claims.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, the data was in county by county format. No breakdown was given as to, say, whether Letterkenny is a net contributor or not. I'd love to have access to such data.

However, the pattern is extremely clear - the major urban areas and their commuter belts are the net contributory areas.

For the original data source...whoo, it was quite some while back, a couple of years ago at least. I can hunt around, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But with respect, then you are claiming something that you don't have the data to prove or disprove.. Kildare (for example) has urban and rural areas, how can you realistically claim that the urban Kildare areas fund the Kildare rural areas when you have no access to either taxation or expenditure data broken down to that level?

Tipp Man

Scofflaw wrote: »

The first point and the second contradict each other - without the infrastructure, the Wicklow water would be running off to sea. So work does go into making Wicklow's rainfall a usable resource. That's the same argument as for water charges - the water needs to be collected, treated, and piped. The work in this case is paid for by Dublin, while Wicklow does nothing.

Thats like saying this gas in Leitrim, if dublin pays for the pipe then Dublin should not pay Leitrim for the gas?? while the cost of the infrastructure, and who pays for it, will have a baring on the price paid for the resource, it is not the sole determinent in the price as the resource is/should be the determinant in the price.

Using the gas example say Dublin uses the Leitrim gas for free to create widgets which it exports to UK. The widget factory employs thousands of Dublin people who pay tax and increase the tax take in the Dublin region while Leitrim has no tax increase. Applying this to the table mentioned above it increase the arguement that urban area taxes are subsidies rural areas. It completly ignores the fact that without the Leitrim gas then there would be no widget factory in Dublin to generate some of these taxes

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would, but primarily because we need that water ourselves, or are likely to in the near future. If they wanted to use water from an area where the resource was not used, however - let's say piping it from the Irish Mournes - the charge would be at most nominal.

how can you say that, water is one of the worlds most scarce resources and is a huge problem in many urban areas around the world. Just because Dublin needs the shannon doesn't mean that we wouldn't/shouldn't charge London for water from the Mournes. If it was oil or gas would you present the same arguement?

Also if London was willing to pay the midlands for Shannon water then why shouldn't Dublin pay a similar price for it?

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not really - things get monetised when they become scarce resources, either because of supply problems or because they're demanded locally. Wicklow's water isn't monetised because it isn't a scarce resource - if it becomes one, it probably will be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Again water is a scarce resource, just not so much in Ireland. In fact water is a scarce resource in Dublin otherwise Dublin wouldn't be taking water from surronding counties - so it is a scarce resource for Dublin

murphaph

Welease wrote: »

The etc etc was not an attempt at a spurious claim.. it was

a) a mistake as I had only quickly reviewed the list provided, so apologies for that.. but more importantly
b) an understanding that once again, using high level averages per area proves little in terms of who pays what, when people try and use that for justification for rural dwellers to carry the full cost of this change..
It takes no account what an individual pays via taxation.. so can a low income urban earner claim to be subsidising a high income rural dweller (especially where that rural dweller lives in a net contributor country)? That is essentially the argument I am being presented with as justification.. and to me it is somewhat hollow..

In regards to the claim of urban vs rural contribution.. Can I see the data for this? The data provided is county by county but gives no indication of the rural vs urban collection and usage of taxes..

Actually the whole money side of this debate was brought in by (presumably) septic tank owners who claimed they were subsidising urban areas sewage treatment systems. The figures just show that urban areas generate enough wealth to cover all their own costs vis a vis infrastructure and that rural dwellers are not generally subsidising urban areas at all. If a rural tax payer is paying higher taxes than a low earner or unemployed person in an urban area, he is supporting rural Ireland with those higher taxes, because urban Ireland can support itself and all its low earners and unemployed and then support rural Ireland with the "excess" (read: metros not being built despite urban areas generating more than enough wealth to build them etc.)

Edit: as regards the urban/rural argument and the figures being county by county...the inference is clear: counties in or directly adjoining large urban centres are net contributors. Counties with a more "more rural than urban" makeup will mask the taxes being generated in the urban areas within that county. Galway city and hinterland is almost certainly also self sufficient I would imagine but Galway is a big rural county which swallows up the social transfers from Galway City and then some.

Welease

murphaph wrote: »

Actually the whole money side of this debate was brought in by (presumably) septic tank owners who claimed they were subsidising urban areas sewage treatment systems. The figures just show that urban areas generate enough wealth to cover all their own costs vis a vis infrastructure and that rural dwellers are not generally subsidising urban areas at all. If a rural tax payer is paying higher taxes than a low earner or unemployed person in an urban area, he is supporting rural Ireland with those higher taxes, because urban Ireland can support itself and all its low earners and unemployed and then support rural Ireland with the "excess" (read: metros not being built despite urban areas generating more than enough wealth to build them etc.)

But thats the point, the figures don't show that.. They should how much is transferred per country.. they do not show the rural vs urban breakdown that people are claiming..

For Kildare, there is no data to show that an urban area like Newbridge is a net contributor and a rural area like Allenwood is a net beneficiary...

Scofflaw

Welease wrote: »

Agreed.. hence my apology

But they are.. Many posts saying why should I pay for your septic tanks etc. Pete_Cavan and others claim no benefit to them, so why should they pay.
I agree it's irrelevant.. but equally so is the claim that someone is paying for my tank with nothing in return.. I can and do pay for many services which I do not receive, as will continue to do so as we don't run a consumption based taxation system. I raise the point to show the fallacy of their claims.

That's a fair point. On an individual level it's perfectly possible for someone to be a net contributor.

Welease wrote: »

But with respect, then you are claiming something that you don't have the data to prove or disprove.. Kildare (for example) has urban and rural areas, how can you realistically claim that the urban Kildare areas fund the Kildare rural areas when you have no access to either taxation or expenditure data broken down to that level?

I can't, and therefore don't. I only make the claim in respect of the major urban areas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Tipp Man wrote: »

Thats like saying this gas in Leitrim, if dublin pays for the pipe then Dublin should not pay Leitrim for the gas?? while the cost of the infrastructure, and who pays for it, will have a baring on the price paid for the resource, it is not the sole determinent in the price as the resource is/should be the determinant in the price.

Using the gas example say Dublin uses the Leitrim gas for free to create widgets which it exports to UK. The widget factory employs thousands of Dublin people who pay tax and increase the tax take in the Dublin region while Leitrim has no tax increase. Applying this to the table mentioned above it increase the arguement that urban area taxes are subsidies rural areas. It completly ignores the fact that without the Leitrim gas then there would be no widget factory in Dublin to generate some of these taxes

If "Dublin" extracted Leitrim gas - a scarce resource which could be used by Leitrim to generate funds, I would expect "Dublin" to pay for it. And I would expect the cost of the Dublin-Leitrim pipeline to be taken into account.

But Wicklow water isn't like Leitrim gas.

Tipp Man wrote: »

how can you say that, water is one of the worlds most scarce resources and is a huge problem in many urban areas around the world. Just because Dublin needs the shannon doesn't mean that we wouldn't/shouldn't charge London for water from the Mournes. If it was oil or gas would you present the same arguement?

Also if London was willing to pay the midlands for Shannon water then why shouldn't Dublin pay a similar price for it?

Again water is a scarce resource, just not so much in Ireland. In fact water is a scarce resource in Dublin otherwise Dublin wouldn't be taking water from surronding counties - so it is a scarce resource for Dublin

That's not relevant, though, because someone who needs a resource is under no obligation to pay for it to compensate those living near the resource if they lose nothing in the process.

That water is a worldwide scarce good is completely irrelevant. As long as water is a surplus resource in Wicklow - and it is - then Wicklow loses nothing it would otherwise be using. That's why the Leitrim gas analogy doesn't hold, because Leitrim could sell the gas or use it itself - Wicklow could do nothing with the water Dublin takes from Wicklow.

Again, that's why the argument over Shannon is different - Ireland will need that water. If Ireland didn't need it, then charging for it would be a purely political move to keep people from being outraged at the UK's "water theft", as it would undoubtedly be described.

And no, that people could be outraged doesn't constitute an argument, when you consider the vast range of things it's possible to get people whipped up about, many of which are entirely reasonable and fair.

cordially,
Scofflaw