Septic tank charges

murphaph

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



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

Neither water from the Shannon nor gas from Leitrim are actually piped to Dublin!

If the midlands (how exactly do you define who "owns" the Shannon water?) wants to sell water to London, it will have to pay a fee to coastal counties to build the pipeline through "their patch".

This whole thing is getting silly. The point was made that charging septic tank owners for inspections and registration was akin to subsididing urban sewage treatment systems. the figures were presented to simply show that this is not the case, that is all.

The fact is that septic tanks provide no benefit to anyone but the owner, therefore the owner should foot the bill for maintenance etc. I mean, did people build septic tanks expecting repair grants or what?

murphaph

Welease wrote: »

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...

What's your gut feeling, having seen the more general figures?

Welease

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

cordially,
Scofflaw

A major urban area like Dublin (in your data) contains both urban and rural areas.. within those areas there will be houses that are connected to public systems and those who have to provide their own sewerage infrastructure.
My point is.. and still stands, that in the context of a discussion of who pays for what sewerage systems, you cannot substantiate any claim with that data, because that data does not have a granular level that shows the urban vs. rural breakdown within Dublin/Cork/Galway (for example).

waster81

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, 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

So major infrastructural projects like the port tunnel, m50, luas lines, would the capital in those projects be spread over a number of years. Are those figures included?

Welease

murphaph wrote: »

What's your gut feeling, having seen the more general figures?

My gut feeling like most things is that it will differ depending on the specifics.. and that the generalisations and generalised data being used prove none of the points being made, which is why I posted.

There are areas in Dublin (for example) with much higher that average unemployment that would gain higher than average benefits that are connected to the public sewerage system, and there are rural areas with high value houses and high income owners that are not connected the public systems and have none of the other benefits associated with urban living..

So on the "who funds who" level of discussion being made.. is it correct to use that graph to ascertain that the urban areas mentioned are funding rural areas mentioned?

Its neither correct not incorrect because that graph doesn't attempt to (nor can it) prove what is being claimed.. Thats the point I am making.

TL;DR version - Using terms like Urban and Rural and graphs like that mean nothing.. becuase they are so generalised and contain both connected and unconnected system owners with no granularity to define either.

murphaph

Welease wrote: »

There are areas in Dublin (for example) with much higher that average unemployment that would gain higher than average benefits that are connected to the public sewerage system, and there are rural areas with high value houses and high income owners that are not connected the public systems and have none of the other benefits associated with urban living..

Where do these people earn the money to pay for these high value one off houses adjacent to Dublin?

Someone who lives in a one off house in the Dublin Mountains or in Fingal is very likely to be employed in the city itself-that's why Kildare, Meath and Wicklow all show a net positive wrt. social transfers out.

Scofflaw

waster81 wrote: »

So major infrastructural projects like the port tunnel, m50, luas lines, would the capital in those projects be spread over a number of years. Are those figures included?

No, what's shown are social transfers. I think that if you wanted to sum capital projects you'd need to do a very detailed cost-benefit analysis of projects all round the country.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Welease wrote: »

My gut feeling like most things is that it will differ depending on the specifics.. and that the generalisations and generalised data being used prove none of the points being made, which is why I posted.

There are areas in Dublin (for example) with much higher that average unemployment that would gain higher than average benefits that are connected to the public sewerage system, and there are rural areas with high value houses and high income owners that are not connected the public systems and have none of the other benefits associated with urban living..

So on the "who funds who" level of discussion being made.. is it correct to use that graph to ascertain that the urban areas mentioned are funding rural areas mentioned?

Its neither correct not incorrect because that graph doesn't attempt to (nor can it) prove what is being claimed.. Thats the point I am making.

I don't see much value in continuing to discuss your straw man. I've agreed it doesn't show town-rural transfers within counties, but it shows exactly what I've claimed it shows. That it doesn't show what you're claiming it doesn't show, and what I agree it doesn't show, is therefore entirely irrelevant.

regards,
Scofflaw

Welease

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't see much value in continuing to discuss your straw man. I've agreed it doesn't show town-rural transfers within counties, but it shows exactly what I've claimed it shows. That it doesn't show what you're claiming it doesn't show, and what I agree it doesn't show, is therefore entirely irrelevant.

regards,
Scofflaw

I was assuming (open to correction) that you produced the data as part of the urban / rural discussion that was running between a lot of people in this thread.. I pointed out that the graph contains nothing specific enough to make a determination either way.. Every county contains urban and rural areas, so I object to your continally dismissing my point as a strawman arguement.

If this was not the aim of your producing the graph, then can you explain why you felt it was necessary? From my reading it was in response to a request from Waster81 for data to support Murphaph claim..

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!!!

waster81 wrote: »

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

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

Welease

murphaph wrote: »

Where do these people earn the money to pay for these high value one off houses adjacent to Dublin?

Someone who lives in a one off house in the Dublin Mountains or in Fingal is very likely to be employed in the city itself-that's why Kildare, Meath and Wicklow all show a net positive wrt. social transfers out.

Maybe .. maybe not.. There are plenty of people in Kildare who would be employed by large companies like Intel, HP, Bord Na Mona etc.. and the industries that support them.

My point is again.. that if people are stating the reason the government should/shouldn't contribute to funding issues is based on "something" (urban / rural transfers or whatever), they they should be able to demonstate that "something".. Gut feelings are not sufficient, as both you and I can gather plenty of people with conflicting gut feelings.. which still proves nothing..

Either a case can be made and proven.. or it is just an assumption and should be stated as such.

Sponge Bob

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't see much value in continuing to discuss your straw man. I've agreed it doesn't show town-rural transfers within counties, but it shows exactly what I've claimed it shows.

Well it does. Another interesting 'social' transfer on a national scale is where law abiding parts of the country pay their taxes to run a Prison system which is disproportionatle populated by residents of Dublin and Limerick cities.

And yet we don't give out about that.....any more than CAP payments are in any way related to Septic Tanks.

Tipp Man

Scofflaw wrote: »

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.



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

So your arguement is based on the fact that because Wicklow doesn't need the water then it has no right to charge Dublin for the water??

That is a completly irrational viewpoint, and indicates that you believe that anybody who is not using a resource can have it taken off them by somebody who needs it - without paying for it.

Comparing Wicklow water to Leitrim gas is in fact comparable, both are natural scarce resources that urban centres (Dublin in this discussion) needs. It is irrational to say that an urban centre should pay for 1 and not the other. Dublin has neither sufficent gas or water to meet it demands so why should it pay for 1 and not the other??

Scofflaw

Welease wrote: »

I was assuming (open to correction) that you produced the data as part of the urban / rural discussion that was running between a lot of people in this thread.. I pointed out that the graph contains nothing specific enough to make a determination either way.. Every county contains urban and rural areas, so I object to your continally dismissing my point as a strawman arguement.

If this was not the aim of your producing the graph, then can you explain why you felt it was necessary? From my reading it was in response to a request from Waster81 for data to support Murphaph claim..

I contended that the major urban areas subsidised the rural areas, and offered the figures in support of that claim.

Where I think we may have got crossed wires is - and this is completely my fault, I accept - that to me "urban areas" in an Irish context is entirely synonymous with the four major urban areas. I wouldn't regard most Irish counties as having any urban areas - they have what are more or less market towns, which are themselves part of the rural fabric. I don't regard somewhere like Portlaoise as an "urban area".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Tipp Man wrote: »

So your arguement is based on the fact that because Wicklow doesn't need the water then it has no right to charge Dublin for the water??

That is a completly irrational viewpoint, and indicates that you believe that anybody who is not using a resource can have it taken off them by somebody who needs it - without paying for it.

Comparing Wicklow water to Leitrim gas is in fact comparable, both are natural scarce resources that urban centres (Dublin in this discussion) needs. It is irrational to say that an urban centre should pay for 1 and not the other. Dublin has neither sufficent gas or water to meet it demands so why should it pay for 1 and not the other??

I'd argue, in fact, that it's meaningless to describe something as a "resource" that isn't being used. So Wicklow's water isn't a "resource" in Wicklow, because there's no use for it, and no attempt is made by Wicklow to collect, treat, or use that water. It becomes a resource only because it is collected and shipped to Dublin.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tipp Man

murphaph wrote: »

Neither water from the Shannon nor gas from Leitrim are actually piped to Dublin!

If the midlands (how exactly do you define who "owns" the Shannon water?) wants to sell water to London, it will have to pay a fee to coastal counties to build the pipeline through "their patch".

This whole thing is getting silly. The point was made that charging septic tank owners for inspections and registration was akin to subsididing urban sewage treatment systems. the figures were presented to simply show that this is not the case, that is all.

The fact is that septic tanks provide no benefit to anyone but the owner, therefore the owner should foot the bill for maintenance etc. I mean, did people build septic tanks expecting repair grants or what?

It is possible and probable that in the near future water will need to be piped to Dublin in large quatities - the shannon has been muted as an option so it is likely that in the next 25-30 years that this will happen

It is pretty easy to define who owns the shannon based on the catchment areas.

The introduction of water to the argument was made to show that although Dublin and Urban areas have a higher tax income, they are doing so based on resources (water) taken from other counties or outside the urban area. So you can't simply look at an urban area and say that take more in tax than they spend so they are subsiding the rural area, when the rural area is supplying a resource without charging for that resource. These resources help in the income generation of the urban areas

Tipp Man

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd argue, in fact, that it's meaningless to describe something as a "resource" that isn't being used. So Wicklow's water isn't a "resource" in Wicklow, because there's no use for it, and no attempt is made by Wicklow to collect, treat, or use that water. It becomes a resource only because it is collected and shipped to Dublin.

cordially,
Scofflaw

A resource doesn't have to be used to be a resource. It is the potential that it will be used at a price that makes it a resource.

Now the fact that Dublin imports billions of gallons of water from Wicklow annually makes it a resource. The fact that Dublin is not paying for that water does not mean that it is not a resource, it simply means that it is a resource that is not being paid for

Once again with Leitrim - if the gas is not extracted does that mean that Leitrim does not have gas resources??

Tora Bora

Tipp Man wrote: »

It is possible and probable that in the near future water will need to be piped to Dublin in large quatities - the shannon has been muted as an option so it is likely that in the next 25-30 years that this will happen

It is pretty easy to define who owns the shannon based on the catchment areas.

The introduction of water to the argument was made to show that although Dublin and Urban areas have a higher tax income, they are doing so based on resources (water) taken from other counties or outside the urban area. So you can't simply look at an urban area and say that take more in tax than they spend so they are subsiding the rural area, when the rural area is supplying a resource without charging for that resource. These resources help in the income generation of the urban areas

The air that they breath in Dublin, comes in over the Cliffs of Moher:cool: Shouldn't the Dubs, be sending a cheque in the post to the west of Ireland for that!!!:D

Scofflaw

Tipp Man wrote: »

It is possible and probable that in the near future water will need to be piped to Dublin in large quatities - the shannon has been muted as an option so it is likely that in the next 25-30 years that this will happen

It is pretty easy to define who owns the shannon based on the catchment areas.

The introduction of water to the argument was made to show that although Dublin and Urban areas have a higher tax income, they are doing so based on resources (water) taken from other counties or outside the urban area. So you can't simply look at an urban area and say that take more in tax than they spend so they are subsiding the rural area, when the rural area is supplying a resource without charging for that resource. These resources help in the income generation of the urban areas

I would accept that as a general point, but once we introduce the issue of such currently uncosted services, we run into the question of the uncosted services that urban areas provide to rural areas, such as the costing of services that urban areas provide to rural ones which couldn't be sustained by rural areas alone, but also the contribution of urban earnings to rural areas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Tipp Man wrote: »

A resource doesn't have to be used to be a resource. It is the potential that it will be used at a price that makes it a resource.

Now the fact that Dublin imports billions of gallons of water from Wicklow annually makes it a resource. The fact that Dublin is not paying for that water does not mean that it is not a resource, it simply means that it is a resource that is not being paid for

Once again with Leitrim - if the gas is not extracted does that mean that Leitrim does not have gas resources??

If the gas were of no use to Leitrim, then yes, that's what it would mean. The point about gas is that it's a saleable/usable commodity within Leitrim.

It would be completely meaningless, for example, to describe mediaeval Leitrim as "having gas resources", even though the same gas was there then.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tipp Man

Scofflaw wrote: »

If the gas were of no use to Leitrim, then yes, that's what it would mean. The point about gas is that it's a saleable/usable commodity within Leitrim.

It would be completely meaningless, for example, to describe mediaeval Leitrim as "having gas resources", even though the same gas was there then.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And water is a saleable/usable commodity both within Wicklow and outside. Go into any shop and see how much a litre of Tipperary Spring water is and the amount of shelf space it occupies. And this happens in a lot of countries throughout the world

Yet billions of gallons of water is taken from Wicklow annually and given to Dublin without payment (directly)

I would also disagree with your mediaeval arguement. Ancient leitrim did have gas resources - what it didn't have is the means to use these resources.

murphaph

Welease wrote: »

Maybe .. maybe not.. There are plenty of people in Kildare who would be employed by large companies like Intel, HP, Bord Na Mona etc.. and the industries that support them.

But Intel and HP are both in Leixlip, one of the biggest towns in Kildare and effectively a suburb of Dublin??

Leixlip is not rural Ireland, it is very much urban. Bord na Mona employs very few people in comparison, and even then many live and work in urban areas (Newbridge, for example).

Welease

murphaph wrote: »

But Intel and HP are both in Leixlip, one of the biggest towns in Kildare and effectively a suburb of Dublin??

Leixlip is not rural Ireland, it is very much urban. Bord na Mona employs very few people in comparison, and even then many live and work in urban areas (Newbridge, for example).

Well that proves my point about the use of terms like Urban and Rural

Scofflaw's point is that Urban refers only to the 4 major cities (I'm assume Dublin, Belfast, Cork and Galway?), and Newbridge for example could not be considered as urban. I agree with you that urban areas can and do exist outside the major cities..

Again noone is wrong, but it won't help a discussion if people are using definitions for standard terminology.

If using Scofflaws terminology and data, then I would still argue that its not a simple urban pays and rural consumes, as many rural counties (Kildare/Meath) transfer more than urban cities like Cork or Galway.

Sponge Bob

Well the word is that we will all pay for water and rather soon. This will apply even if we have roof runoff tanks to collect it or wells to draw it from....and if the local authority refuses to supply us with public water as often happens in rural areas.

If we all have to pay for it on the way in then surely we should all pay for it on the way out as well.

swampgas

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Well the word is that we will all pay for water and rather soon. This will apply even if we have roof runoff tanks to collect it or wells to draw it from....and if the local authority refuses to supply us with public water as often happens in rural areas.

An advantage of explicitly paying for something is that one can threaten to withhold payment. Not so easy in the case of water charges, but I can imagine a scenario where deficiencies in the water supply system could lead to non-payment campaigns by those affected.

Godge

Welease wrote: »

Well that proves my point about the use of terms like Urban and Rural

Scofflaw's point is that Urban refers only to the 4 major cities (I'm assume Dublin, Belfast, Cork and Galway?), and Newbridge for example could not be considered as urban. I agree with you that urban areas can and do exist outside the major cities..

Again noone is wrong, but it won't help a discussion if people are using definitions for standard terminology.

If using Scofflaws terminology and data, then I would still argue that its not a simple urban pays and rural consumes, as many rural counties (Kildare/Meath) transfer more than urban cities like Cork or Galway.

No it doesn't prove your point. Greater London includes bits of Kent. Greater Dublin includes bits of Kildare, Meath, Wicklow and Louth. That is Scofflaw's point and Intel etc. only prove his point. Intel were never likely to set up in Carbury or Donadea, urban conurbations of Kildare??

Welease

Godge wrote: »

No it doesn't prove your point. Greater London includes bits of Kent. Greater Dublin includes bits of Kildare, Meath, Wicklow and Louth. That is Scofflaw's point and Intel etc. only prove his point. Intel were never likely to set up in Carbury or Donadea, urban conurbations of Kildare??

That wasn't the point being made....

Icepick

waster81 wrote: »

So major infrastructural projects like the port tunnel, m50, luas lines, would the capital in those projects be spread over a number of years. Are those figures included?

These are not free to use by Dubliners.

Living in cities is obviously more efficient than living in the country, unless you are a hermit.

waster81

Icepick wrote: »

These are not free to use by Dubliners.

Living in cities is obviously more efficient than living in the country, unless you are a hermit.

no **** sherlock

What are you on about

Icepick

waster81 wrote: »

no **** sherlock

What are you on about

I made 2 points. Which 1 are you referring to?

n97 mini

waster81 wrote: »

no **** sherlock

What are you on about

His points are conceptually quite simple, and also quite reasonable.