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

Move domestic refuse charges into property tax/general taxation

Options
  • 13-09-2013 10:37am
    #1
    thejuggler
    Registered Users Posts: 852 ✭✭✭


    Would Ireland be a cleaner place if the cost of domestic refuse collection were included in general taxation? As far as I can see the move towards charging for waste collection in recent years has lead to widespread fly tipping and an increasing litter problem in all parts of the country. Perhaps the charge could be bundled into the propery tax. As far as I know these charges are collected as par of council tax in the UK. Seems logical.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    thejuggler wrote: »
    Would Ireland be a cleaner place if the cost of domestic refuse collection were included in general taxation? As far as I can see the move towards charging for waste collection in recent years has lead to widespread fly tipping and an increasing litter problem in all parts of the country. Perhaps the charge could be bundled into the propery tax. As far as I know these charges are collected as par of council tax in the UK. Seems logical.
    Do I get to pay less income tax if I generate less waste?


  • Options
    #3
    thejuggler
    Registered Users Posts: 852 ✭✭✭thejuggler


    Doubtful but I presume there is a standard size wheelie bin so the costs are the same regardless of usage.


  • Options
    #4
    V.W.L 11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭V.W.L 11


    a universal pay by weight system no???the lighter the bin the less you pay and so on,my knowledge of this subject isnt great i'm merely being speculative


  • Options
    #5
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    We pay by bin collected and the more you recycle, the less you pay.

    Stronger enforcement is the answer and those without a bin collection contract should be inspected to see how they are disposing of their rubbish.


  • Options
    #6
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,699 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    V.W.L 11 wrote: »
    a universal pay by weight system no???the lighter the bin the less you pay and so on,my knowledge of this subject isnt great i'm merely being speculative

    This targets families unfairly. Disposable nappies are incredibly heavy. A quarter full bin would weigh the same as a standard full bin.

    Next...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Tabnabs wrote: »
    This targets families unfairly. Disposable nappies are incredibly heavy. A quarter full bin would weigh the same as a standard full bin.

    Next...

    It may impact families more, but why 'unfairly'? If I'm generating all this waste, why should by childless neighbours pay for it?


  • Options
    #8
    V.W.L 11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭V.W.L 11


    Tabnabs wrote: »
    This targets families unfairly. Disposable nappies are incredibly heavy. A quarter full bin would weigh the same as a standard full bin.

    Next...

    i am a parent of 3 children all of whom are in nappies,i currently pay €40 per month for my bin service am i better off on my current plan or pay by weight?it would be interesting


  • Options
    #9
    V.W.L 11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭V.W.L 11


    Phoebas wrote: »
    It may impact families more, but why 'unfairly'? If I'm generating all this waste, why should by childless neighbours pay for it?

    less it weighs the less you pay,no????people getting waivers is another issue,some on social welfare have more income than working families,yet the working class,if earning less would be liable for full bin charges,abolish waivers and introduce pay by weight working or not,no?????


  • Options
    #10
    hfallada
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,180 ✭✭✭hfallada


    No. Waste collection should be polluter pays. What incentive do I have to recycle when I pay the same amount regardless of how much I produce. The bag levy is a polluter pays tax and has been hugely successful. A majority of people dont dump and the people that do, would dump regardless of how much a bin collection cost.


  • Options
    #11
    V.W.L 11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭V.W.L 11


    hfallada wrote: »
    No. Waste collection should be polluter pays. What incentive do I have to recycle when I pay the same amount regardless of how much I produce. The bag levy is a polluter pays tax and has been hugely successful. A majority of people dont dump and the people that do, would dump regardless of how much a bin collection cost.
    I'm the same whether i put out a full or near empty bin whether its waste,glass,recycling i pay the same,at this it can be a financial injustice,they claim glass and recycling are "free" yet if i dont pay the €40 those bins dont get emptied,funny ol system


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    V.W.L 11 wrote: »
    I'm the same whether i put out a full or near empty bin whether its waste,glass,recycling i pay the same,at this it can be a financial injustice,they claim glass and recycling are "free" yet if i dont pay the €40 those bins dont get emptied,funny ol system

    Don't put glass in your bin - bring it to a bottle bank.

    Recycling collections haven't been free in Dublin City (greyhound anyway) for a while now.


  • Options
    #13
    V.W.L 11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭V.W.L 11


    alastair wrote: »
    Don't put glass in your bin - bring it to a bottle bank.

    Recycling collections haven't been free in Dublin City (greyhound anyway) for a while now.

    the nearest bottle bank is 5 miles and 2 bus trips away,been lobbying for a bottle bank for years but of no avail sadly,switch to greenstar????!


  • Options
    #14
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Phoebas wrote: »
    It may impact families more, but why 'unfairly'? If I'm generating all this waste, why should by childless neighbours pay for it?

    Because your childless neighbours are doing nothing to help pay for your pensions? Being a complete cynic about it of course.


  • Options
    #15
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    nesf wrote: »
    Because your childless neighbours are doing nothing to help pay for your pensions? Being a complete cynic about it of course.

    Which is about as useful as I'll pay you back later, I promise in our political system.

    Sure isn't that what one tends to do when they want the childless to pay for their children will be the line when it comes time to pay out...


  • Options
    #16
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    thebman wrote: »
    Which is about as useful as I'll pay you back later, I promise in our political system.

    Sure isn't that what one tends to do when they want the childless to pay for their children will be the line when it comes time to pay out...

    You do realise our entire system is based on the idea that you and I produce a sufficient number of productive sprogs to pay for our retirement don't you? We, as a nation, haven't been doing this for a few decades now.

    I'm not saying I agree with our system, just right now that's how its set up. Personally I don't care whether a couple is childless or not, that's their business, just it makes rather a lot of sense to encourage people to have kids rather than not from a long term point of view.


  • Options
    #17
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    nesf wrote: »
    You do realise our entire system is based on the idea that you and I produce a sufficient number of productive sprogs to pay for our retirement don't you? We, as a nation, haven't been doing this for a few decades now.

    I'm aware thats how it has worked up to now and I don't really have a problem with it. I would question if it can continue with a bankrupt country with a declining birth rate though... This system isn't viable anymore as far as I can see. A lot of professionals in the area have massive concerns about future pensions too.

    So why should those without children continue to pay for services for children on the assumption that they will provide retirement funds for them when they get older when all evidence currently points to that not happening?

    And why would future generations still paying off our bank debt wish to fund the pensions of the generations whose mismanagement of our resources resulted in that large bill for them limiting their generations potential?

    You can't break the system like our government has then wonder why people don't continue to want to pay in when it looks like there will be no pay out...


  • Options
    #18
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    nesf wrote: »
    You do realise our entire system is based on the idea that you and I produce a sufficient number of productive sprogs to pay for our retirement don't you?
    Well actually in theory the PRSI system is supposed to pay for social welfare pensions. The idea that we pump out more and more children because we couldn't be bothered saving enough while we're working is a baby boomer ponzi scheme that will inevitably collapse in time.


  • Options
    #19
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    hmmm wrote: »
    Well actually in theory the PRSI system is supposed to pay for social welfare pensions. The idea that we pump out more and more children because we couldn't be bothered saving enough while we're working is a baby boomer ponzi scheme that will inevitably collapse in time.

    I couldn't agree more. The system is insane.


Advertisement