Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why Do The Green Party Attract Such Animosity?

1356

Comments

  • #62
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    None of that answers where that came from.

    I'm actually surprised that you're supporting an unfounded claim since - as I said - if astrofool can support that claim, then there is no need for inspections; and if they can't, surely a moderator should be requesting people to back up unsubstantiated claims ?

    The view that half the pollution found in the EPA's survey is derived from septic tanks is derived from the expert agencies in question - the EPA and the GSI. I did link to the Groundwater Newsletter in question, but perhaps I had better quote from it:
    It is considered that OSWTSs and organic manure/slurry/soiled water generated in farmyards are roughly equally responsible overall for pollution of wells and springs by faecal bacteria in Ireland. This view is based on the following:
    1. Groundwater pollution assessments done by the Geological Survey of Ireland staff over a 40 year period. Evidence was usually a combination of circumstantial (e.g. proximity of the polluted well to the OSWTS and nearby farmyards, taking account of the likely groundwater flow direction) and hydrochemical (e.g. K/Na ratio).
    2. Well water quality surveys in south Sligo by Sligo RTC in the mid 1980s.
    3. Research on septic tank systems by Sligo RTC in the early 1990s.
    4. EPA-funded research undertaken by TCD on OSWTSs (refer to the article on page 4).

    I can personally vouch for the fact that septic tank pollution has been an ongoing feature of Irish groundwater since the early Nineties - but it was hardly a new problem then. It just wasn't such a big problem because of slightly lower densities in many rural areas and slightly fewer people drinking the resulting contaminated water.

    I'm not sure why you feel you need to reject all claims that septic tanks are a major source of water pollution in Ireland, but you're rejecting it in the face of fourty years' worth of expert evidence that it's the case. That, of course, invites the question "why has nothing been done about it?", and the answer is, as it is for nearly all these things, that doing something about them is highly unpopular unless you're offering to rebuild every septic tank in Ireland at public expense. Any other move leads to the usual round of whining about the insupportable burden of pointless regulation - except that it isn't pointless. Shite from some/many people's badly sealed septic tanks is getting into their own and other people's water. Something has to be done about it, and the government can't afford to rebuild or subsidise the rebuilding of everybody's septic tanks.

    If you have a counter-claim that septic tanks aren't a major source of rural pollution, feel free to trot it out - but I'll expect at least the level of expert backup I've cited in support of my position, rather than just an "I don't believe it and I'm entitled to my beliefs".

    I'm tempted to add to that that I'm quite happy enough not to subsidise people's septic tanks - we city dwellers do a lot of subsidising, and in return we get told to keep our noses out of country affairs on a regular basis. I don't mind keeping my nose out of the affairs of country people as long as their hand isn't in my wallet, but unfortunately their hand is in my wallet.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    an incentive grant of, say, €500, taken up by 281,000 septic tank owners would cost the state €140m. That's quite a bit of money in the current environment.
    At least it would be money going to a useful purpose, rather than flushing it down the cesspit that is Anglo (pun intended).

    True, but regrettably apparently irrelevant, as well as applicable to pretty much everything in Ireland right now.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #63
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Scofflaw wrote:
    I'm not sure why you feel you need to reject all claims that septic tanks are a major source of water pollution in Ireland

    Sorry ?

    Show me where I rejected that ?

    Unlike the earlier poster, I do not make claims about which I don't know the facts.

    What I objected to was an unsubstantiated claim that most septic tanks were polluting, and I pointed out that the "polluter pays" principle is not being applied to this area.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I'm tempted to add to that that I'm quite happy enough not to subsidise people's septic tanks - we city dwellers do a lot of subsidising, and in return we get told to keep our noses out of country affairs on a regular basis. I don't mind keeping my nose out of the affairs of country people as long as their hand isn't in my wallet, but unfortunately their hand is in my wallet.

    Completely and utterly irrelevant.

    I did not ask you to subsidise it, nor do I expect you to.

    I suggested that the cost of the inspection scheme be recouped from the fines. Given that it's such a huge problem, that should be very successful and should even make a profit.

    It's also an ironic stance, considering I'm not the one who supports a party that forces us all to subsidise cesspits.

    And before you go on about subsidising, remind me again who had to pay to buy out the M50 and whose taxes paid for the Luas and DART and inner-city redevelopment tax breaks ?

    EDIT : And even more than I thought : http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0718/transport.html


  • #64
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,472 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    the greens don't get the animosity they deserve

    im sick of fine gael politicians, (and to lesser extent labour cos theyre not leaders of op) are constantly making lame vegetable and animals quips, saying the greens swapped nama for the stag hunt ban, they may have done deals on various issues in the programme for government, but many fg/td and ff politiciain have been saying, "the greens have swapping nama for deers and dogs",they seriously said this, be f'ing serious for god sake, you're talking about national politicians in government, they approved nama because thats what governments do. The green party isn't a joke, its part of your government, theyre real life humans beings with some intelligence the stag hunt ban is not more important then nama to them, grow up and don't even suggest it, they've dumped the hippies, look at their economic policies, that affect everyone. Theyre the pdgreens now, i believe pushing ff to the right, not the left, they're going to put double taxes on environmental services to create markets to be privatized, continue cap and trade scams, carbon taxes etc, green wash and green consumerism. maybe you don't focus on those issues because you agree with those policies?


  • #65
    IrishTonyO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭IrishTonyO


    expectationlost wrote: »
    the greens don't get the animosity they deserve

    im sick of fine gael politicians, (and to lesser extent labour cos theyre not leaders of op) are constantly making lame vegetable and animals quips, saying the greens swapped nama for the stag hunt ban, they may have done deals on various issues in the programme for government, but many fg/td and ff politiciain have been saying, "the greens have swapping nama for deers and dogs",they seriously said this, be f'ing serious for god sake, you're talking about national politicians in government, they approved nama because that what governments do, the green party isnt a joke, its part of your government, theyre real life humans beings with some intelligence the stag hunt ban is not more important then nama to them, grow up and don't even suggest it, look at their economic policies, that affect everyone, theyre the pdgreens now, i believe pushing ff to the right, not the left, they're going to put double taxes on environmental services to create markets to be privatized, continue cap and trade scams, carbon taxes etc, green wash and green consumerism. maybe you don't focus on those issues because you agree with those policies?

    quite hard to understand when you type it all as one sentence


  • #66
    astrofool
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,407 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    None of that answers where that came from.

    I'm actually surprised that you're supporting an unfounded claim since - as I said - if astrofool can support that claim, then there is no need for inspections; and if they can't, surely a moderator should be requesting people to back up unsubstantiated claims ?

    Never got back to this.

    I have family who work in this area (treatment of septic tanks), claim is from first hand knowledge of working in the area.

    Something that inspections will establish pretty quickly.

    btw, I disagree with the Greens implementation of most policies, apart from this one :)


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    dermothickey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 489 ✭✭dermothickey


    Word on the street is the Greens have no jobs for anyone except the taxman.


  • #68
    Arnold Layne
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 976 ✭✭✭Arnold Layne


    dermothickey wrote: »
    Word on the street is the Greens have no jobs for anyone except the taxman.

    and Niall O'Brolchain and definitely no jobs at the propoed Poolbeg Incinerator


  • #69
    dermothickey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 489 ✭✭dermothickey


    They could always offer the 450,000 people unemployed a job cleaning up the rivers and canals. Take everyone eligible for work out there in to the open and have em cleaning the whole country so we can have our green and pleasant land.

    Back to the week on week off schemes. Breast fed shovels for the boys, but no the jobs they seemed to have created are people counting bats and frogs. Jobs for the boys huh


  • #70
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Sorry ?

    Show me where I rejected that ?

    Unlike the earlier poster, I do not make claims about which I don't know the facts.

    Sorry - it appeared to me that that's what you were doing. I had linked to the substantiating document already. I retract that statement, obviously.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    What I objected to was an unsubstantiated claim that most septic tanks were polluting, and I pointed out that the "polluter pays" principle is not being applied to this area.

    It's almost impossible to apply "polluter pays" here without doing a site survey on every septic tank. Groundwater surveys are expensive and time-consuming, and open to challenge, because there is always an element of uncertainty about stating that the pollution found is coming from a specific source (it's a bit like our corruption legislation in that respect - you have to show that the pollution you actually found is from the specific source). All of that, multiplied by 420,000 septic tanks, adds up to a huge bill.

    If it's more cost-effective to treat every owner as a polluter, then that is, unfortunately, the right thing for the government to do - I appreciate what you're saying, that it treats you like a polluter when you're not, but "polluter pays" can only work when the polluter can be identified at a reasonable cost.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Completely and utterly irrelevant.

    I did not ask you to subsidise it, nor do I expect you to.

    I suggested that the cost of the inspection scheme be recouped from the fines. Given that it's such a huge problem, that should be very successful and should even make a profit.

    Not without draconic fines, really. Groundwater work in Irish geology is very expensive, and the cost of legal challenges to rulings could be high.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    It's also an ironic stance, considering I'm not the one who supports a party that forces us all to subsidise cesspits.

    And before you go on about subsidising, remind me again who had to pay to buy out the M50 and whose taxes paid for the Luas and DART and inner-city redevelopment tax breaks ?

    EDIT : And even more than I thought : http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0718/transport.html

    I don't know - are you suggesting that the rest of country subsidised works in Dublin? I'd be interested in seeing the figures there.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #71
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    It's almost impossible to apply "polluter pays" here without doing a site survey on every septic tank. Groundwater surveys are expensive and time-consuming, and open to challenge, because there is always an element of uncertainty about stating that the pollution found is coming from a specific source (it's a bit like our corruption legislation in that respect - you have to show that the pollution you actually found is from the specific source). All of that, multiplied by 420,000 septic tanks, adds up to a huge bill.

    If "most" septic tanks are polluting then 350,000 x €5,000 fine > € 1.5 billion
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    If it's more cost-effective to treat every owner as a polluter, then that is, unfortunately, the right thing for the government to do - I appreciate what you're saying, that it treats you like a polluter when you're not, but "polluter pays" can only work when the polluter can be identified at a reasonable cost.

    Bull. It would be far more cost-effective to treat every driver as a speeder; should we just fire a letter out to every licence-holder and not bother with speed cameras, radar guns, etc ?
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Not without draconic fines, really.

    So ? Are you suddenly against draconian fines for those irresponsibly and recklessly ruining the world ?

    That's what "polluter pays" means; get those who pollute to cover the costs of their pollution and the associated overheads.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I don't know - are you suggesting that the rest of country subsidised works in Dublin? I'd be interested in seeing the figures there.

    I don't know. As I said, I don't deal in non-facts. But you didn't have figures about "subsidising those living in the countryside", so a contra-argument was perfectly valid.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    If "most" septic tanks are polluting then 350,000 x €5,000 fine > € 1.5 billion
    Septic tank inspection, if it is charged similarly to Scotland will be around €100, so the inspections will raise €40m but will also cost the state a lot to carry out.

    I can't see people being fined unless they repeatedly refuse to carry out the prescribed remedies after failing a septic tank inspection. Same as the NCT.

    So the upshot will be that people whose septic tanks are poorly maintained or leaking will have to pay to fix them or face a fine. In other words, people who are polluting the water table with faecal coliforms will have to pay.

    That sounds like the polluter pays to me.


  • #73
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    dynamick wrote: »
    Septic tank inspection, if it is charged similarly to Scotland will be around €100, so the inspections will raise €40m but will also cost the state a lot to carry out.

    This is the part I am objecting to, because it is not "polluter pays".
    dynamick wrote: »
    So the upshot will be that people whose septic tanks are poorly maintained or leaking will have to pay to fix them or face a fine. In other words, people who are polluting the water table with faecal coliforms will have to pay.

    That sounds like the polluter pays to me.

    Are you missing my point ? The €100 charge applies to EVERYONE, including non-polluters.

    It is your 2nd point that I agree completely with, as it would be "polluter pays"; the problem is that they're charging EVERYONE (or rather, everyone who has already installed and maintains their own septic tank, at their own expense).

    Add a multiple of that €100 charge to the fines, based on the predicted ratio of polluting tanks (e.g. a €2,000 increase if they suspect that 1-in-20 are polluting), and leave non-polluters alone.

    Just as Scofflaw doesn't want to subsidise non-Dublin dwellers, I don't want to subsidise the polluters.

    Anyways, this is just ONE are where the Greens are objectionable, so I don't want to hog the whole thread.


  • #74
    bijapos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,003 ✭✭✭bijapos


    Has a definite decision been made as to whether they are going to charge for the inspection?


  • #75
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    This is the part I am objecting to, because it is not "polluter pays".
    I would have though that it's normal that compliance costs are carried by the person being inspected. I pay for my own NCT even if I pass. Do you think someone else should pay for my NCT?

    If you decide to poo in a box in your front garden I don't see why I should pay to check it for leaks.

    By the same token, I wouldn't want you paying for my sewage treatment, which you probably do.
    bijapos wrote: »
    Has a definite decision been made as to whether they are going to charge for the inspection?
    I don't think that the public consultation has even started yet. So you should have a chance to make your view known. Check http://www.environ.ie


  • #76
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    dynamick wrote: »
    I would have though that it's normal that compliance costs are carried by the person being inspected. I pay for my own NCT even if I pass. Do you think someone else should pay for my NCT?

    If you decide to poo in a box in your front garden I don't see why I should pay to check it for leaks.

    I didn't suggest that you do. I said that the scheme should be financed from the fines : "polluter pays".

    The NCT also checks for safety, so it's not completely related to the "polluter pays" principle.....mind you (just as an aside) I can see the NCT being more objectionable in the future as the country will have less money to maintain the roads.
    dynamick wrote: »
    By the same token, I wouldn't want you paying for my sewage treatment, which you probably do.

    Thanks for the reminder that I'll be paying on the double! :P


  • #77
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Are you missing my point ? The €100 charge applies to EVERYONE, including non-polluters.

    You have a very good point there Liam

    As i said earlier i already spend alot and will be spending more annually to mantain a system that has nearly drinkable :P water coming out the other side

    Slapping more tax on top of this will be a punishment for being responsible, and amounts to nothing more than another tax considering i am not polluting

    sigh greens make me sick for their arseways approach to the environment


  • #78
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    If "most" septic tanks are polluting then 350,000 x €5,000 fine > € 1.5 billion

    As dynamick says, I can't see people being fined for anything less than repeated breaches.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Bull. It would be far more cost-effective to treat every driver as a speeder; should we just fire a letter out to every licence-holder and not bother with speed cameras, radar guns, etc ?

    By all accounts the system of fines for speeding more than covers its costs.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    So ? Are you suddenly against draconian fines for those irresponsibly and recklessly ruining the world ?

    When have I ever been for it, exactly?
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    That's what "polluter pays" means; get those who pollute to cover the costs of their pollution and the associated overheads.

    Like I said, I doubt it's feasible in this case. The analogy of speeding is poorly chosen - speeding is easy to determine, pollution by a particular septic tank is hard.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I don't know. As I said, I don't deal in non-facts. But you didn't have figures about "subsidising those living in the countryside", so a contra-argument was perfectly valid.

    Touché - the second statement at least.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #79
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/economy/current/regincome.pdf


  • #80
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I didn't suggest that you do. I said that the scheme should be financed from the fines : "polluter pays".

    The NCT also checks for safety, so it's not completely related to the "polluter pays" principle.....mind you (just as an aside) I can see the NCT being more objectionable in the future as the country will have less money to maintain the roads.

    The issue here is also safety, though - the concern with septic tanks is contamination of other people's water supplies. This isn't about birds and bees, it's about the fact that Ireland has E.coli levels in water nearly 30 times that of England and Wales.

    Fines are not going to cover the cost of inspections here unless they are so draconian that they become really worth fighting in court, and the more draconian the fines, the more reluctantly they will be applied - which means that the fines need to be increased to yet more draconian levels, etc.

    Dog, dog licence - septic tank, septic tank licence.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #81
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Dog, dog licence - septic tank, septic tank licence.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    your true colors are shinning thru' now :rolleyes:
    it has nothing to do with environment but everything to do taxing people more and more

    the above perfectly illiterates how bluntly indiscriminate and silly the Greens tax tax tax approach is

    you keep ignoring that new waste treatments systems are very clean
    why should tax be paid on these (on top of maintenance and checks)?

    wheres your "polluter pays" principle gone??


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    pollution by a particular septic tank is hard.

    :confused: Strawmanning. The new system is going to have to determine who to fine, so this point is completely irrelevant.

    All I have suggested is that those fines be slightly higher so that the "polluter pays" principle that the Greens normally claim remains intact.

    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Ireland has E.coli levels in water nearly 30 times that of England and Wales.

    And, of course, the faecal matter from septic tanks and those pesky animals that crap in fields can't get into the water supply, now can it.....because it's sealed and doesn't leak, right ?


  • #83
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Would a system like below not solve the problem?

    * 1st time FREE check and provide feedback and time-frame to house owner
    * if the 1st check is negative then a 2nd FREE check X months time-interval later
    * if the feedback has not being dealt with then a fine is imposed

    this process should pay for itself via the fines, and not contribute any money to the exchequer to be spend on banks or public sector :rolleyes: remember the aim is to help the environment not give the govt more money to waste ...

    over time less and less fines be imposed and less inspections can be made

    hell it will probably create a raft of green and ****ty :P jobs


    this way the environment wins, people win, polluter pays and jobs are created

    edit: does anyone know how many septic tanks/treatment systems are in the country? so can work out some numbers


  • #84
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    That's almost precisely what I was proposing, ei.sdraob......

    Unfortunately, while it conforms perfectly with the "polluter pays" principle, it's not "tax the bo**ox out of anyone who had the gall not to live in a city".


  • #85
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    edit: does anyone know how many septic tanks/treatment systems are in the country? so can work out some numbers
    440,000 from census 2006

    I have a survey at home showing maintenance of septic tanks in Ireland. As far as I remember, a good proportion of people service their septic tanks once or twice after they buy them but after a few years, hardly any bother. I'll have a look for it in the next few days.


  • #86
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    dynamick wrote: »
    440,000 from census 2006

    I have a survey at home showing maintenance of septic tanks in Ireland. As far as I remember, a good proportion of people service their septic tanks once or twice after they buy them but after a few years, hardly any bother. I'll have a look for it in the next few days.

    thanks, lets do some numbers

    440,000 first time inspections + 220,000 repeat inspections = 660,000 inspections a year
    assuming one hour per inspection, its not exactly high skilled job and there could be travel times involved going house to house in countryside, and paying lets say 9eur/hour, once again its a ****ty enough repetitive job that wouldn't require much skill

    thats 660,000 * 9 = 5.94 million

    now lets quadruple this since there would be other overheads (petrol , vans, admin costs etc)
    thats 23.76 million euro operating cost a year, but lets roundup to 30 million this being Ireland :p and the workforce needing teabreaks ;) and who knows there could be a union involved :(

    at a 1000 euro fine you would need to fine 30,000 owners to break even



    now you could either setup a quango to do this (my heart bleeds) lets call it An Board Poo,
    or offer startup capital to 3-4 or more companies to compete and have a small regulating body and earn a profit, tho their market would shrink over time


    eitherway this could:
    * help the environment by tanks being checked regularly and forcing the owners to upgrade/cleanup
    * ~660,000 to ~1,000,000 man hours a year would create ~625 full time jobs (1,000,000 / 1600) which could be perfect for unskilled since not much training would be involved


  • #87
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    dynamick wrote: »
    http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/economy/current/regincome.pdf

    In pictorial terms:

    2sb7bsj.png

    And that's just "social transfers" on the inbound leg. Wicklow, Dublin, Kildare and Meath each pay an average of €1624, €2022, €2125 and €2321 per capita annually into the social transfer system. Kilkenny, Cork, Laois, and Clare each manage a little input - €103, €210, €283 and €297 respectively - but it's a tenth of what Dublin people pay on average to support the rest of the country. Add into that the EU transfers, which nearly all go out in the form of VAT (and therefore mostly come from the four 'productive' counties again) and come back in in the form of CAP - the beneficiaries register would allow me to add those into the system if I had time. And since the balance of taxation and social transfers in most counties is already negative, there's no chance they're paying for their infrastructural projects.
    Liam Byrne wrote:
    That's almost precisely what I was proposing, ei.sdraob......

    Unfortunately, while it conforms perfectly with the "polluter pays" principle, it's not "tax the bo**ox out of anyone who had the gall not to live in a city".

    See the map above - actually, the principle is "tax the bo**ox out of people who live near Dublin to pay for everyone else".

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • #88
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    at a 1000 euro fine you would need to fine 30,000 owners to break even

    Again, my thoughts exactly, however you're off by a possible factor of 5!!!
    Fines of up to €5,000 or three months' imprisonment can currently be imposed for not ensuring the wastewater is properly treated. Penalties are likely to be of a similar order under the new system.

    Source : http://www.independent.ie/national-news/440000-must-buy-septic-tank-licence--gormley-1929083.html

    So absolutely no need whatsoever to charge non-polluting members of society, and the threat of a possible fine or that magnitude would cause people to check and maintain theirs more often, reducing pollution, which is (supposedly) the whole point.


  • #89
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    See the map above - actually, the principle is "tax the bo**ox out of people who live near Dublin to pay for everyone else".

    Does that map factor in the fact that all state vehicles (Garda cars, buses, post office vans, ESB, ministerial cars, etc, etc) are "D" regs, and therefore are taxed via (and providing income to) Dublin local authorities despite being used in other counties and therefore not providing much-needed income to those local authorities, thereby requiring redress from central government ?


  • #90
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    See the map above - actually, the principle is "tax the bo**ox out of people who live near Dublin to pay for everyone else".

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    I worked in Dublin and here in west, don't forget that people move about for work

    taxation could be moved more towards the local county level as well
    sort of like the states in the US have more local state taxation than federal

    anyways thats a whole other subject

    but it seems your whole argument for the septic tax revolves around

    "Dublin pays for the rest of the country so we need to impose a Poo tax on those boggers" :rolleyes:
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Again, my thoughts exactly, however you're off by a possible factor of 5!!!



    Source : http://www.independent.ie/national-news/440000-must-buy-septic-tank-licence--gormley-1929083.html

    So absolutely no need whatsoever to charge non-polluting members of society, and the threat of a possible fine or that magnitude would cause people to check and maintain theirs more often, reducing pollution, which is (supposedly) the whole point.

    I know about the 5000 figure :)
    I should have explained my rationale

    the 1000 eur fine would be enough of an incentive (without crippling the family in short term) to invest in a ~4000-5000 eur treatment plant (total cost to family will be 5000 in end but they get a treatment plant out of it)

    the fine of course could be doubled year on year ;) to make a point


    either way its a quite reasonable (but not too harsh) proposal; that targets the polluters, creates jobs and helps the environment

    Jebus i am more Green than the Greens here on boards :D who seem to have thrown the polluter pays principle of theirs out the window causing so much "anonymity" (see thread title)

    and instead have exposed their true agenda of making the country people pay because the center of commerce and the country is in Dublin (for a great variety of reasons going a long way back into history), and has nothing to do with helping the environment of course


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    could have a twist on above

    and have a 5000 euro fine

    but 4000 of this would be refunded when and if a proper treatment system is in place



    @Scofflaw you would like this

    EU_net_budget_2007-2013_per_capita_cartogram.png

    transfer of money occurs on the EU level too, I don't see many people in Ireland complaining about receiving more money from EU than giving back, just hope they dont get ideas in Brussels about a Poo Tax (with all the cows we have that be something) or Methane tax or whatever


Advertisement