Bin charge protests and breastfeeding

Sparks · 11-10-2003 9:06pm

Originally posted by Cork
Local Authoritys have powers to impose charges. Could you point to where you are getting the pay twice data from?

Two places - one being the revenue commissionars, who have a partial (and rather inadaquate) tax relief scheme for local services (and they don't give tax relief on something that you haven't paid for Cork...); and the other being the reality that without a seperate funding source, waste collection has happened in the past, ergo it was paid for from general taxation.

Simple, logical and clear as crystal to anyone that sits down and thinks about it soberly for more than four seconds.

I could see local authoritys pulling out of waste collection and leaving it commercial companies.

And I can see Gardai beating unarmed protestors illegally - doesn't mean it's right though...

Commercial Companies will surely collect rubbish for free.

Nope. But you can be damn sure they won't send you two invoices for one service...

In a perfect world every thing would be free.
But refuse collection costs. You have landfill fees, wages and truck expenses.

And that's an implied lie. I've said it before, and I will keep on saying it cork - they're not asking for a free service, they're saying they will only pay for it once, not twice. Trying to imply that they're asking for a free service is a lie.

If Joe & his crew won't gaurentee that they won't breach high court orders - there is due process.

Yup.

So, where can it be shown that refuse charges - people are paying twice?

The start of this post.

People outside Dublin - have no problems with paying for a service. Maybe some Dubliners find it hard to accept that they'll have to take responsibility for their trash.

Actually, people outside dublin and people inside dublin have two things in common - neither expects a free service and neither wants to pay twice for something. The difference is that inside dublin they're actually doing something about it. A stand that will benefit everyone in the long term.
But it's in the long term, so I'm not surprised you don't see that cork, long-term isn't a FF trait.

Payment by wieght is the way to go. This was introduced first in West Cork. North Cork is following from next January.
Dublin - catch up.

And are they happy about paying twice? No. But for whatever reason they've decided not to bother protesting the fact. But if the protestors in fingall get their objective - not to pay twice for the same service - than you can be damn sure that west cork will be on the streets the next day. There aren't that many fools down there...

Local Authoritys have no obligation to collect refuse that has not the correct amount of tags.

Yup.

Where are you getting the pay twice thing from?

Top of this post please cork.

No local authority can charge for something twice.

They can and do. Nothing illegal about it either, just immoral. However, it's not illegal to refuse to pay for something twice.

Cork · 11-10-2003 9:19pm

Originally posted by Sparks
Two places - one being the revenue commissionars, who have a partial (and rather inadaquate) tax relief scheme for local services (and they don't give tax relief on something that you haven't paid for Cork...); and the other being the reality that without a seperate funding source, waste collection has happened in the past, ergo it was paid for from general taxation.

.

Now, the revenue commissioners are seperate from local authoritys. The Revenue commissioners collect tax and are not responsible for services other than tax collection.

and the other being the reality that without a seperate funding source, waste collection has happened in the past, ergo it was paid for from general taxation.

Directory Enquiries used be free from Eircom Phone Boxes. Motor Taxation was paid from geeneral taxation after the 1977 election. But things move on.

Both public and private companies can charge for things that were once considered "Free".

Local Authorities now charge for planning objections. Just because something was once free - you cannot expect it to be free forever.

General Direct Taxation has come down in the mean-time & landfill costs have rocketed.

Sparks · 11-10-2003 9:28pm

Originally posted by Cork
Now, the revenue commissioners are seperate from local authoritys. The Revenue commissioners collect tax and are not responsible for services other than tax collection.

Even you're not that intellectually challanged Cork. Try to answer the question rather than pulling a bertie.

The revenue commissionars manage central taxation. They know what central taxation pays for. And they provide an incomplete stab at tax relief for those that pay for their services directly to the local authority or private contractors. Which means one of two things:
1) Santa's running the revenue commissionars and is giving away money during a recession;
2) Local services are charged for in central taxation.

Directory Enquiries used be free from Eircom Phone Boxes.

And then Eircom was sold off as a private company.

Motor Taxation was paid from geeneral taxation after the 1977 election.

Do you really want to risk bringing VRT into this argument Cork?

Both public and private companies can charge for things that were once considered "Free".

Liar. Not only is this not true as you have written it, it assumes the protestors want the service provided for free, which they don't.

Local Authorities now charge for planning objections. Just because something was once free - you cannot expect it to be free forever.

Indeed. However, rubbish collection was never free and noone ever expected it to be. They do expect to only pay once for it though, and they have a perfect right to demand that they only pay for it once.
And by the way, you need a reason to start charging for something that's been free for ages. And "profit" does not suffice as a reason for public authorities.

General Direct Taxation has come down in the mean-time & landfill costs have rocketed.

General direct taxation has come down and general indirect taxation has risen, more than compensating and increasing social inequity in the bargain.
A rise in service costs should result in a rise in service charges, not charging twice for the same thing.

Cork · 11-10-2003 9:45pm

Local Authorities have no obligation to collect refuse. They don't come next or near my road.

Commercial Contractors do. Every body down my road pays for commercial collectors to come in & collect refuse.

Down the road - the council collects. They operate a tag a bag system. People on that road get a waiver scheme - we don't.

People accross Cork have been paying for refuse for years. People are getting a service. If people on my road did not pay - the refuse bin would not come & empty the refuse.

They are not legally oblieged to do so. There is no legal compulsion for local authoritys to collect refuse,

In one Cork Town - people put out bins without the correct number of tags. Legally - the council did not have to collect it.

If paying twice can be proven - you have won your case.

I have my doubts, as local authoritys do seem to have the power to impose charges.

I think the local government fund is a non specific contribution to local authoritys from central government. I don't think - it specifies what universal services are to be provided without charge.

I don't think either of us is going to convince the other on this one. But - If the anti bin protestors have a hope - they need to win the payment twice arguement in the courts.

Sparks · 11-10-2003 9:58pm

Originally posted by Cork
Local Authorities have no obligation to collect refuse. They don't come next or near my road.

And the protestors have no obligation to pay twice for the same service.

Commercial Contractors do.

No they don't, not unless you have a contract with them. And if you have a contract with them, they can't demand payment twice.

Every body down my road pays for commercial collectors to come in & collect refuse.

As do I.

People on that road get a waiver scheme - we don't.

No, you don't get a waiver, you get tax credits instead, to a value of around 200 euro or so. Of course, that can either cover bin charges or local authority charges, but as I said above, the tax relief scheme is incomplete and inadaquate.

People accross Cork have been paying for refuse for years.

And people in fingal have been paying for refuse collection for years as well, and not only that, they paid for it this year. They're just not going to pay for it twice.

People are getting a service. If people on my road did not pay - the refuse bin would not come & empty the refuse.

Yes, but the protestors in fingal have already paid for the service.

They are not legally oblieged to do so. There is no legal compulsion for local authoritys to collect refuse,

And where have I said there was?

In one Cork Town - people put out bins without the correct number of tags. Legally - the council did not have to collect it.

Yup.

If paying twice can be proven - you have won your case.

Then I've won my case. Or didn't you read the posts I've written this evening?

I have my doubts, as local authoritys do seem to have the power to impose charges.

That's got nothing to do with it. No-one is saying "oh, I'm not paying for the service and I want it anyway". They're saying "I've paid for the service, and now I want it".

I think the local government fund is a non specific contribution to local authoritys from central government.

Non-specific?
So what, bertie signs a cheque for a quarter-million euro and gives it to Wicklow County Council without any detailed bill?
:rolleyes:

Although, scarily, given that the FF/PDs are in charge, I wouldn't be overly surprised...

I don't think either of us is going to convince the other on this one.

That's only due to your lack of willingness to acknowlege reality. If you could manage to drop the FF line for thirty seconds while thinking about this, you'd see how daft you look arguing your point.

But - If the anti bin protestors have a hope - they need to win the payment twice arguement in the courts.

The payment twice fact hasn't been brought to the courts, yet.

Cork · 12-10-2003 12:56am

Originally posted by Sparks

That's only due to your lack of willingness to acknowlege reality. If you could manage to drop the FF line for thirty seconds while thinking about this, you'd see how daft you look arguing your point.

The payment twice fact hasn't been brought to the courts, yet.

Point Of information. The waiver scheme in North & West Cork offers a discount to OAPs or hoseholds whose sole source of income is social welfare.

Now. Local Authoritys is Ireland never offered a universal bin collection service. My area pays tax. We always had to pay a commercial operator.

A universal refuse service was never on offer by my local authority to my road. We had to pay for one. This is the reality of life outside Dublin.

If I had a parking fine quashed my my local authority and in the meantime I paid it. I would be entitled to a refund.

Landfill is no longer an option from a environmental point of view. Landfill costs have rocketed. But you maintain that people have already paid for it thru central taxation.

A portion of your tax does not go to local authoritys - it goes to a central fund. Cork tax does not go to Cork County Council. It is up to government - how to spend tax money.

Your tax money could go on education, health or defence. There is no facility for people to target yheir tax money.

The protestors in Dublin should admit that services have to be paid for. Even, down the line rates are re-introduced - we'd only be going back to a pre 1977 situation.

But the differance - PAYE workers were paying much higher direct tax rates back in the 70's

RainyDay · 12-10-2003 9:53am

Originally posted by Sparks
And they provide an incomplete stab at tax relief for those that pay for their services directly to the local authority or private contractors.

Hi Sparks - Tell us more about why the tax relief on waste charges is incomplete. I get full tax relief on the amount that I pay in waste charges (Dun Laoghaire Rathdown), so there is no double taxation for me. How could the tax relief be made more 'complete'?

Originally posted by Sparks
General direct taxation has come down and general indirect taxation has risen, more than compensating and increasing social inequity in the bargain.

I'd really like to see the figures that support this statement. Remember that over the past 15 years or so, direct taxation has come down from 55% to 42% at the upper rate, the middle rate of 35% was dropped, and the lower rate has dropped from 25% to 20%. These changes make a vast difference to the amount of tax paid by anyone in employment. I can't see how increases in services charges, VAT or other indirect taxation would come anywhere near compensating for these drops in taxation.

I really can't understand why the Irish nation is so surprised. As a nation, we have voted for reduced taxation in the past two general elections. You get what you pay for. If you pay less tax, you get less services - it's that simple. That is why our hospitals are overflowing, our school roofs are collapsing and our local authorities are starved of funds from central government.

Hellrazer · 12-10-2003 10:20am

Here in Kildare the charges are approx €350 per year.Now since the recycling bin arrived I recycle about 80 percent of my waste but still have to pay 100% of the refuse disposal charge.
In my opinion this is not right.There is no charge for the recycling bin but from next year there "will probably be a charge for this service".

If this happens the council can take away the recycling bin and put all of the waste back to landfill.

My point--There is no incentive to recycle waste in this country especially when the householder is probably going to have to pay to recycle their waste.
What Cork is saying about paying by weight is the way to go with the incentive to recycle being free collection of the green bin.

I personally dont have a problem with paying for waste charges but I dont want to subsidise my neighbour who decides that they dont want to pay.
But what pisses me off with regards to the jailing of the protesters is that this country is becoming like a police state---our right to protest has been made illegal.Firstly they jail the protesters,what next?? allow the lorry drivers to drive over them????Probably a bit of an extreme statement but you see where Im going.
Bertie and his associates are becoming a bit too powerful when it comes to changing laws without a Dail debate.

Surely there is some part of our constitution which allows for free protest???

And why dont the backbenchers/opposition have a vote of no confidence in the government?????Because not one of them has the balls to stand up for what they believe in.That the problem with this country----people sit back and let the people in power fu<k them over.

Rant over!!!
Richie.

RainyDay · 12-10-2003 10:29am

Originally posted by Hellrazer
But what pisses me off with regards to the jailing of the protesters is that this country is becoming like a police state---our right to protest has been made illegal.

This is factually untrue. No-one was jailed for protesting. They were jailed for stopping the trucks collecting rubbish from the rest of the community - big difference.

Hellrazer · 12-10-2003 10:34am

Originally posted by RainyDay
This is factually untrue. No-one was jailed for protesting. They were jailed for stopping the trucks collecting rubbish from the rest of the community - big difference.

Stopping the trucks from collecting the waste WAS their protest.
Like the way people stood in front of the JCBs in the Glen of the Downs protesting against destroying an area of significant beauty to build a dual carriageway.
Blocking trucks/jcbs whatever is a well known form of peaceful protest.

RainyDay · 12-10-2003 10:49am

Originally posted by Hellrazer
Stopping the trucks from collecting the waste WAS their protest.
....
Blocking trucks/jcbs whatever is a well known form of peaceful protest.

Yep, and that's why they are in prison. I do think it was a fairly harsh sentance, mind you. But if Joe/Clare and co had spent 10 minutes thinking about it, I'm sure they could have come up with a form of peaceful protest that attracted loads of media attention and didn't create a health hazard for the rest of the community. But they didn't - so they are in jail.

Hellrazer · 12-10-2003 11:06am

Do you not think that now with them being jailed they have more media attention than any other form of protest could have generated.
In a way the government are shooting themselves in the foot by jailing these protesters.

RainyDay · 12-10-2003 11:12am

Originally posted by Hellrazer
Do you not think that now with them being jailed they have more media attention than any other form of protest could have generated.
In a way the government are shooting themselves in the foot by jailing these protesters.

Maybe, but the Govt didn't jail the protesters - The courts jailed the protesters. The courts operate independently of the Govt. The jailing of the protesters was not a political decision.

Villain · 12-10-2003 11:24am

Originally posted by RainyDay
Maybe, but the Govt didn't jail the protesters - The courts jailed the protesters. The courts operate independently of the Govt. The jailing of the protesters was not a political decision.

The Injunction was brought by the council so they are to blaim for handling the situation arse ways and generating a surge in these protests. With the Unions involved this will get messy.

Nevyn · 12-10-2003 11:41am

and mess it will be, if enough ot the union members push on it the union will have to resposnd and we could see this spreading to all sorts of strikes over the winter.

Boston · 12-10-2003 11:50am

Originally posted by RainyDay
Yep, and that's why they are in prison. I do think it was a fairly harsh sentance, mind you. But if Joe/Clare and co had spent 10 minutes thinking about it, I'm sure they could have come up with a form of peaceful protest that attracted loads of media attention and didn't create a health hazard for the rest of the community. But they didn't - so they are in jail.

well what type of health hazard do you call permently uncollected rubbish, these guys didn't start to block trucks because they where asked to pay, they blocked them because they where told their rubbish wouldn't be picked up, and they where trying to prevent a health hazards, the trucks are aloud to move once they collect everyones rubbish, the bin men have no problem iwth this, but the LA's are bloking them from doing it, who is really causeing the health hazard here

Cork · 12-10-2003 11:59am

Stopping the trucks from collecting the waste WAS their protest.

Blocking trucks is not protesting. It just costs the local authoritys money. If these people think they pay for this service - let them prove it in court.

Local Authoritys have power to impose charges for services it provides. Any public or private sector organisation can do this.

People outside Dublin have no problem with these charges.

People are responsible for thir own trash. It is up of everybody to reduce, recycling & re-use. You cannot expect the state to pick up the tab for your garbage.

The days of landfill are numbered anyway.

Villain · 12-10-2003 12:06pm

Originally posted by Cork

People outside Dublin have no problem with these charges.

We have other problems do, we have people dumping ditches and in forest areas, theres an illegal dump a mile from we'r my parents a renting and it's huge much bigger than those that were in the media months ago. I can't comment too much on it coz the local authorites are bringing the owner to court but some well respected large carlow companies have dumped there in the past. There also was evidence of animal remains when the local authorites surveyd the site. Dumping is still evident all be it on a much reduced scale.

My parents live in a rural area in Carlow and they burn anything that is burnable beacuse its costs something like 13 euro a week for one wheely bin.

Burning is bad for the enviroment but it costs less, (I don't support it btw ).

RainyDay · 12-10-2003 1:19pm

Originally posted by irish1
The Injunction was brought by the council so they are to blaim for handling the situation arse ways and generating a surge in these protests. With the Unions involved this will get messy.

The council are not the Govt. They are the council.

In fact, the immediate cause of the recent disruption was the change in legislation last year to allow the councils NOT to collect rubbish from those who won't pay the fee. So I fully accept & understand that the Govt are responsible for this. But they didn't send anyone to jail - the Courts did that.

But if you really want to look at the root cause, you've got to look at the dramatic reduction in income taxes over the last 15 years which has resulting in cuts in the subvention to local authorities from central Govt. But I know most people prefer to remain 'in denial' on that point - It's far easier to rant (inaccurately) about double taxation than to face up to the truth that you get what you pay for.

Boston · 12-10-2003 1:24pm

Originally posted by RainyDay
But if you really want to look at the root cause, you've got to look at the dramatic reduction in income taxes over the last 15 years which has resulting in cuts in the subvention to local authorities from central Govt.

what are you rabbiting on about, this is complete fiction, revenue from income tax is several times what it was 15 years ago, infact 15 years ago every penny of income tax was spent on meeting nation debt interest repayments.

Villain · 12-10-2003 1:30pm

Originally posted by RainyDay
The council are not the Govt. They are the council.

I know that read my post correctly I said

Originally posted by Irish1

The Injunction was brought by the council so they are to blaim

I didn't say the council were the government.
:rolleyes:

Cork · 12-10-2003 1:40pm

Originally posted by irish1
We have other problems do, we have people dumping ditches and in forest areas, theres an illegal dump a mile from we'r my parents a renting and it's huge much bigger than those that were in the media months ago.

Contact your local litter warden - such dumping is illegal.

The Injunction was brought by the council so they are to blaim

government, local authorities and private individuals are entitled to recourse to the law.

Do the protestors have troble with sentences? This was a judical metter.

The IFA were fined a number of years ago for blocking meat factories.

RainyDay · 12-10-2003 1:40pm

Originally posted by Boston
what are you rabbiting on about, this is complete fiction, revenue from income tax is several times what it was 15 years ago

Fact: Top rate of income tax in the late 80's was 55% - today the top rate is 42%. Fact: Middle-rate of income tax in the late 80's was 35% - today the middle rate has been eliminated and tax payers drop back to the lower rate. Fact: Lower rate of income tax in the late 80's was 25% - today, the top rate is 20%. Fact: Capital gains tax was at 40% for most of the 1990's and was up to 60% in certain cases - today the CGT rate is 20%.

Tax rates have dropped - that is a fact. Comparing the absolute value of income tax revenue is meaningless, unless you look at the number of people employed, the rates of inflation etc. Tax rates have dropped, whether you like it or not.

Of course, you have the right to bury your head in the sand like an ostritch & pretend that this isn't happening. That doesn't change the truth.

Originally posted by Boston
infact 15 years ago every penny of income tax was spent on meeting nation debt interest repayments.

Correct - but I don't see any relevance of this to the debate in hand. Huge amounts of today's tax revenue are being spent on catching up on the infrastructural deficit arising from many years of underspending, but that doesn't change the fact that tax rates have dropped considerably.

Boston · 12-10-2003 1:56pm

Originally posted by RainyDay
. Comparing the absolute value of income tax revenue is meaningless, unless you look at the number of people employed, the rates of inflation etc. Tax rates have dropped, whether you like it or not.

Bull, the bottom line is that even taking inflation into account, tax revenue is far greater per capita then ever in the history of the state, its not percentages that pay for public services its real money. Claiming that these taxes have to be introduced because of a drop in tax rates is just twisted.

RainyDay · 12-10-2003 2:59pm

Originally posted by Boston
Bull, the bottom line is that even taking inflation into account, tax revenue is far greater per capita then ever in the history of the state, its not percentages that pay for public services its real money.

Got any real numbers to back up this load of bluster, Boston. I've shown you my numbers (i.e. the specific rates & how they have changed), now you show my yours?

Villain · 12-10-2003 3:04pm

Originally posted by Cork
The IFA were fined a number of years ago for blocking meat factories.

Fine - Jail for a month

emmm is that meant to be a comparison

Boston · 12-10-2003 3:15pm

rainyday i would but i can't be arse, if you think i'm wrong so through the cso website and find out the information, you will find that 2003 is the first time income-tax-revenue has fallen since the start of the celtic tiger and is still far higher then it was in the 1980's something like 6.5 billion in 2oo2 and 7.1 billion in 2001

Cork · 12-10-2003 4:09pm

Fine - Jail for a month

The IFA were fined by our courts. Joe Higgins wasput into prison for a spell.

These sanctions were imposed by our courts.

The taxation debate is interesting. We are paying very low direct taxes. We have no local taxation as they have in many countries across the EU.

Yet people expect their tax - to cover health, education, defence, environment, etc.

If people want refuse collection to be covered - let ouncils impose local taxation.

Socialists across Europe support local taxation. (Yesterdays Irish Times).

Point of Information - has the refuse collection in Limerick city been completely taken over by a commercial operator?

Who does Joe Higgins think should fund fund such operators??

Villain · 12-10-2003 4:15pm

Originally posted by Cork
The IFA were fined by our courts. Joe Higgins wasput into prison for a spell.

Yes exactly double standards, I think I know why too, the number of farmers in this country compared to the few less priviliged people in local class double is far far greater.

(In case you thought I was trying to blaim the council for the sentences I wasn't, I was pointing out that they were the ones that brought these people to the courts)

RainyDay · 12-10-2003 4:32pm

Originally posted by Boston
rainyday i would but i can't be arse, if you think i'm wrong so through the cso website and find out the information, you will find that 2003 is the first time income-tax-revenue has fallen since the start of the celtic tiger and is still far higher then it was in the 1980's something like 6.5 billion in 2oo2 and 7.1 billion in 2001

Like I said earlier, comparing the absolute value of income tax revenue is meaningless, unless you look at the number of people employed, the rates of inflation etc.

Tax rates have dropped, whether you like it or not.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good arguement, eh? Have you considered a career in Fianna Fail? You'd make a great junior Minister.

Bin charge protests and breastfeeding

Comments