Bin charge protests and breastfeeding

Paddyo · 14-10-2003 3:16pm

Or lets spend lots of money on people intent of ignoring a court injunction by having to bring them to court and keep them in prison!!

Sparks - its easy to be against everything - VHI, Bin Charges, Lear Jets, the government (well ok then on that one).

I havnt seen one positive post by you yet.

Paddyo

Imposter · 14-10-2003 3:24pm

Originally posted by Sparks
You've read the post I wrote to cork on this?

Correct. If I pay you for a service and then you demand the fee again, that's double-charging.

Actually he hasn't. He's mumbled something about rates without being specific - I've given details about this year's budget arrangements regarding bin charges.
This year there's a tax relief scheme for those that pay bin charges. It's incomplete, but it is there. Which means that your income tax pays the bin charges. So when the Local Authority charges you again, and the tax relief doesn't cover it - that's double taxation. Plain, simple, and obvious.

Just done a quick skim across what's been said and here's my summary:
1. Person pays PAYE etc.
3. Government gives every local authority a grant (or whatever you want to call it)
3. No proof shown as to where any of this Tax is allocated to local authorities specifically for refuse collection.
4. Local Authorities or private contractors want money for refuse collection.

My take on the tax-relief is that you get it only when you pay this refuse collection charge.

Now providing I haven't missed anything above then nobodies paying twice. If you can show me some proof that the government grant is supposed to cover the costs of refuse collection, thereby meaning that the local authority is responsible for collecting everyone's thrash then I agree it's double taxation. Otherwise your argument falls down.

DaithiSurfer · 14-10-2003 3:38pm

The tax refund on your bin charges will not be for the full amount.
May even be only 20% (not sure).
If it was all refunded then their is no point paying the charge.
Many people belive they will get every penny of the charge refunded on their tax. This is simply not true.

Sparks · 14-10-2003 3:39pm

Originally posted by Imposter
3. No proof shown as to where any of this Tax is allocated to local authorities specifically for refuse collection.

Now that's where you're incorrect.
The proof is that you are offered relief on your PAYE tax if you pay the local authority or a private company for refuse collection.
That would not be done if your PAYE tax didn't go to pay for local authority services.

Now providing I haven't missed anything above then nobodies paying twice.

They wouldn't be - if the tax relief was complete, which it isn't.

oscarBravo · 14-10-2003 3:48pm

Originally posted by Sparks
Actually, it is a requirement for any formal contract. Verbal contracts, as the saying goes, are worth the paper they're printed on. Buying something over the counter and similar transactions, don't count as contracts.

Yes, they do. For a contract to exist, there has to be offer, acceptance and consideration.

A few weeks ago, a motorised valve actuator died in my central heating system. I went to the local plumbing supplies shop, picked one up, and asked them to bill me for it. In due course, the bill arrived.

Are you seriously telling me that no contract existed for the sale of the actuator, and that I have no protection in law against being billed for it twice?

Because that service isn't provided by the local authority. Which means that you're paying for a service you don't get. Which is as bad as double charging.
But I would have thought that went without saying, OB.

I don't accept your thesis that I'm already paying for the service.

Here's the real irony: you argued earlier that no contract exists unless it's written and signed - where's my contract with the government to collect my refuse?

The fact is that the payment of direct and indirect taxes has never formed part of an explicit contract for the provision of any specific services. The nature of a representative democracy is that the population periodically get to select a government, to whom they delegate the responsibility of deciding what services should be funded from tax revenue, and to what extent. If you don't like the current government's policies, vote for someone else. If most of the people agree with you, a different government will implement a different set of policies.

Correct, but you're missing an important point here - namely that this time last year, the courts wouldn't have been able to charge people for this. FF-pushed, specifically written legislation is the only reason they can.

That's immaterial. It's the law, and they broke it. Don't like it? Elect someone who'll change the law.

Imposter · 14-10-2003 3:49pm

Originally posted by Sparks
Now that's where you're incorrect.
The proof is that you are offered relief on your PAYE tax if you pay the local authority or a private company for refuse collection.
That would not be done if your PAYE tax didn't go to pay for local authority services.

They wouldn't be - if the tax relief was complete, which it isn't.

Ok now I see your point.
But.. does that mean that my Tax pays my rent as a similar rent allowance scheme exists?

Surely what the governemnt is doing here is providing a tax-incentive rather than tax-relief. or not?

Meh · 14-10-2003 5:08pm

Originally posted by Sparks
The proof is that you are offered relief on your PAYE tax if you pay the local authority or a private company for refuse collection.
That would not be done if your PAYE tax didn't go to pay for local authority services.

I get tax relief on my rent payments (to a private landlord). Does that mean that I'm being charged twice for my accommodation, and that the government should be obliged to pay my rent for me?

IgnatiusJRiley · 14-10-2003 5:16pm

Originally posted by Boston

what do you call arresting people

Law enforcement!!!!!!

these are the people in irish society who always have and allways will be pissed on from above, and they have had enough of it

The rest of the country has had to pay bin charges for ages and have just got on with it. Pay the money and complaing about something important like corruption.

Villain · 14-10-2003 6:51pm

Originally posted by oscarBravo
How exactly do you propose to have a single standard here? Jail the entire IFA? Fine the bin protesters "only" 250,000 per day?

To be effective, the courts need a mechanism for enforcement of their orders. The method employed varies based on the circumstances.

Jailing whatever farmers were blocking the plants after an injunction was taken would have been correct.

Hiding behind an assoication should not make a difference in this case.

Cork · 14-10-2003 6:55pm

Originally posted by IgnatiusJRiley

The rest of the country has had to pay bin charges for ages and have just got on with it. Pay the money and complaing about something important like corruption.

If you don't pay for a service you should not get the benefit of it. Dublin is years behind the rest of the country. Living outside Dublin - people have been paying refuse for years. I think every other capital city in the EU pays refuse charges.

The paying twice arguement is amazing. If the anti charges protests could prove the paying twice arguement - why are lorrys being blocked?

Local Authorities have power to impose charges. This is democracy.

People outside Dublin have no problem paying bin charges.

Payment by wieght is already working well in west Cork. There is a micro chip in the bin & people are billed every 2 months according to the bins wieght.

It is being extended countrywide - this measure will encourage recycling.

The "polluters pays" principle extends to more than George W. Bush.

Do these anti bin protesters approve of the Koyoto Treaty?

The days of filling landfill with refuse are gone anyway.

Bin Charges are here to stay folks!

Boston · 14-10-2003 6:58pm

Originally posted by IgnatiusJRiley
Law enforcement!!!!!!

The rest of the country has had to pay bin charges for ages and have just got on with it. Pay the money and complaing about something important like corruption.

just because your getting screwed doesn't make it right.

Cork · 14-10-2003 7:13pm

Originally posted by Boston
just because your getting screwed doesn't make it right.

People are paying for a service. Many local authorities no longer collect trash.

Are commercial companys to collect trash for free?

Local authories have power to impose charges.

Courts have the power to impose sentances and fines.

.

Boston · 14-10-2003 7:49pm

cork your like a broken record.

oscarBravo · 14-10-2003 8:00pm

Originally posted by irish1
Jailing whatever farmers were blocking the plants after an injunction was taken would have been correct.

Hiding behind an assoication should not make a difference in this case.

It depends on your definition of "correct." The idea of imposing a sanction for contempt of court is to discourage the offending party from defying the court's orders. The IFA stopped picketing after two days of fines: seems to me the court took the "correct" action from its perspective.

Cork · 14-10-2003 10:04pm

Originally posted by Boston
cork your like a broken record.

Down here in Cork - we pay for our disposal of broken records.

Other capital cities across the EU do the same.

www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com

sceptre · 15-10-2003 2:37am

:rolleyes:

I've never before seen someone deliberately do their level best to lose an argument and make themselves look like the least desirable type of plonker at the same time.

Tempted as I am to point out that Cork city is in fact not a capital city, I won't. I might actually be presented with some string of random words masquerading as a reply

Imposter · 15-10-2003 8:48am

Originally posted by Boston
paye rates may have fallen, but the revenue from them has never been higher. The services are allready being paid for through existing taxation, how do you think they where paying for it?
...
maybe these people are just pissed off because there being asked to pay for waste to be incenerated in their own back yard? i know i am,.

Boston,
Why exactly are you against refuse charges? The above 2 snippits is all I've found from you in this thread that vaguely resemble a reason!

The argument Cork and others are making about the rest of the country not getting their refuse collected by the authorities as the service is "paid for already", refutes your first argument. It was just a priviledge that dubliner's enjoyed.

As for the second point can you clarify what you mean. Are you burning your own rubbish or are you complaining that someone wants to put an incinerator in Dublin to burn Dublin's waste?

Boston · 15-10-2003 9:36am

Fact is public services are why we pay taxes, if whre going to pay for rubbish collection then there should be a decrease in direct taxes, if there isn't then where paying twice. The cost of collecting rubish in rural areas is far hgher then in urban areas and i can understand why a supplementary charge would be required, but the idea of asking people to pay the full amounth is not on. Secondly before we know where we are we will be payign directly for all public services, water/rubbish/ to drive on the streets (not just tole roads) and so on. Do you really think there will be any decrease in road tax or any other tax when we all start paying directly for these sevices, no there won't, which just means where paying twice or three times for it. Now i know allot of you say but these things arn't pay for by taxes and stuff, sorry but have a look at where the tax revenue actually goes.

As for the second point, the incinerator is being built not to far (dependign on the privailing winds) for myself, numberous times i came out in the morning and nearly vomitted from the stench of the stuff these things where pumping out (they where doing tests) and now they wont moi to pay for the privalage, feic that i say.

IgnatiusJRiley · 15-10-2003 9:37am

Originally posted by Boston
just because your getting screwed doesn't make it right.

I live in DUBLIN and have paid the charges because it's right. And now those a**h*** protesters have stopped my bin from being collected. That twat that got knocked down yesterday got off lightly imo

Boston · 15-10-2003 9:41am

Originally posted by IgnatiusJRiley
I live in DUBLIN and have paid the charges because it's right. And now those a**h*** protesters have stopped my bin from being collected. That guy that got knocked down yesterday got off lightly imo

Well thats just great, i suppose you would have no problem if your next door neighbour refused to pay and allowed the rubbish to stock pile.

As for the guy that got knock down, you think someone should be seriously injured, even killed because your rubbish wasn't collect, if your feel so strongly get off your arse and bring it to the depo yourself.

IgnatiusJRiley · 15-10-2003 9:43am

Originally posted by Boston
Well thats just great, i suppose you would have no problem if your next door neighbour refused to pay and allowed the rubbish to stock pile.

Yes I would have a problem with it which is one of the reasons people should be paying the charge.

As for the guy that got knock down, you think someone should be seriously injured, even killed because your rubbish wasn't collect, if your feel so strongly get off your arse and bring it to the depo yourself.

Not because my rubbish wasn't collected but because he's an idiot.

IgnatiusJRiley · 15-10-2003 9:51am

From Ireland.com today:

"The proportion of householders who have paid their waste charges in individual local authority areas has increased from 60 per cent before the protests, to between 70 and 80 per cent."

Just proves people are so disgusted with these "protesters" that they've decided to pay them. I'm glad most people have some sense.

Sparks · 15-10-2003 9:57am

Cork, remember those posts where you were rather adamant that noone outside Dublin had a problem with bin taxes, especially not in Cork city?

Care to comment on the November 2001 supreme court case which ruled that county councils were legally obliged to collect rubbish as a basic service, regardless of payment of the local authority service charges? Which came about because of bin tax protestors in cork city taking the council to court?

Oh, and there were protests in Limerick as well - thought I'd mention that since you've mentioned them as well.

Sparks · 15-10-2003 9:59am

Originally posted by IgnatiusJRiley
From Ireland.com today:

"The proportion of householders who have paid their waste charges in individual local authority areas has increased from 60 per cent before the protests, to between 70 and 80 per cent."

Just proves people are so disgusted with these "protesters" that they've decided to pay them. I'm glad most people have some sense.

Yeah, right. From a Freedom of Information request:

Out of 64,951 homes sent bills 12,786 had clear accounts at week ending 2nd May 2003. A further 6,380 have paid the first moiety. 13,839 have made other form of payments during the peroid 1/1/03 to 2/5/03. A further 18,627 households have made payments or received a waiver during the peroid 1/1/00 to 2/5/03. 13,319 households have made no payments at all.

So 1/5 have paid and 4/5 (or 80%) haven't paid up (in full or at all) yet.

This info is from Catherine Keenan, Freedom of Information Officer D/R

RainyDay · 15-10-2003 10:00am

Originally posted by Boston
Fact if whre going to pay for rubbish collection then there should be a decrease in direct taxes, if there isn't then where paying twice.

How many times, Boston.
Direct tax rates have dropped over the time that bin charges have come in. From 55% to 42% for upper rate PAYE, from 25% to 20% for lower rate, and the middle 35% rate was scrapped.
And before you respond with the oul 'but the indirect taxes' guff, please come up with just one verifiable figure that indicates that the increases in indirect taxes come within an asses roar of the impact of these specific decreases in direct taxation.

Sparks · 15-10-2003 10:06am

Originally posted by IgnatiusJRiley
Yes I would have a problem with it which is one of the reasons people should be paying the charge.

You're missing two rather key points here.

1) The protestors weren't stopping binmen collecting rubbish from everyone, just from only collecting rubbish selectively. So in fact they weren't trying to stop your rubbish being collected.

2) The reason that the protests are still happening now, despite a Supreme Court ruling in November 2001 which said that local authorities were legally obliged to collect rubbish as an essential service, regardless of nonpayment of service charges, is that FF pushed through the 2002 environment bill, which overrode a supreme court ruling.

In other words, the bin tax protests are actually underlining a point on seperation of powers (even though that's not what they set out to do), and by not supporting them, you're cutting your own throat too.

Don't forget, if they lose this protest, the next step for the councils is to privatise the service, at which point you can look forward to a few years of price hikes and a total loss of any and all control over the service, especially if you're in an area with only one private company doing waster removal.

Sparks · 15-10-2003 10:08am

Originally posted by RainyDay
How many times, Boston.
Direct tax rates have dropped over the time that bin charges have come in. From 55% to 42% for upper rate PAYE, from 25% to 20% for lower rate, and the middle 35% rate was scrapped.
And before you respond with the oul 'but the indirect taxes' guff, please come up with just one verifiable figure that indicates that the increases in indirect taxes come within an asses roar of the impact of these specific decreases in direct taxation.

How many times, RainyDay? Total tax revenue has increased by a very large amount since the days of 55% tax. VAT, VRT and a slew of other indirect taxes haven't been subjected to the cuts that direct tax has. Instead, VAT's catchment area has been expanded while FF shout as loudly as they can that direct tax has fallen.
The end result though, is that you have less effective cash in pocket at the end of the day. Or did you think that it was more expensive to live in Dublin than in St.Tropez because we have better weather?

Boston · 15-10-2003 10:16am

well put sparks

IgnatiusJRiley: i hadn't realised standing up for somethign you believe is considered stupid? Hmm i certainly hope that you never get pissed off by somethign an look for local support. Why is it so hard for you tpo understand that some people can't afford to pay the charge and also don't really want to be able to afford the charge, most people at this stage are paying out of fear of being sued not because they support the idea.

oscarBravo · 15-10-2003 10:19am

Originally posted by Sparks
2) The reason that the protests are still happening now, despite a Supreme Court ruling in November 2001 which said that local authorities were legally obliged to collect rubbish as an essential service, regardless of nonpayment of service charges, is that FF pushed through the 2002 environment bill, which overrode a supreme court ruling.

No offence, Sparks, but you don't seem to understand how government works. The job of the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, is to implement the law as it currently exists, whether common or legislative. The function of government is to create legislation. There is no reason why legislation should be in line with previous Supreme Court judgements; in fact it is often the case that legislation is implemented as a result of court verdicts.

You seem to be under the impression that legislation should be bound by common law, whereas in fact it is bound by the Constitution.

...especially if you're in an area with only one private company doing waster removal.

...as opposed to the police doing "waster" removal as currently happens?

Imposter · 15-10-2003 10:27am

Originally posted by Boston
Fact is public services are why we pay taxes, if whre going to pay for rubbish collection then there should be a decrease in direct taxes, if there isn't then where paying twice. The cost of collecting rubish in rural areas is far hgher then in urban areas and i can understand why a supplementary charge would be required, but the idea of asking people to pay the full amounth is not on. Secondly before we know where we are we will be payign directly for all public services, water/rubbish/ to drive on the streets (not just tole roads) and so on. Do you really think there will be any decrease in road tax or any other tax when we all start paying directly for these sevices, no there won't, which just means where paying twice or three times for it. Now i know allot of you say but these things arn't pay for by taxes and stuff, sorry but have a look at where the tax revenue actually goes.

So you think it's ok if rural houses pay a 'supplement' for refuse collection because it costs more. But using your argument they've already paid their taxes. Does the same apply to Dublin bus users as public transport is far from extensive in rural areas so therefore these rural taxpayers are 'supplementing' dubliners?

As for the second point, the incinerator is being built not to far (dependign on the privailing winds) for myself, numberous times i came out in the morning and nearly vomitted from the stench of the stuff these things where pumping out (they where doing tests) and now they wont moi to pay for the privalage, feic that i say.

I'm genuinely sorry that is the case but can you tell me of one area in the whole country that such an incinerator would be welcome? Fact of the matter is that it is needed.

It seems to me that you've got a very a la carte approach to taxes. It's fine for you if they raise this then they reduce the other. It's not as simple as that and it's meant to be balanced for the whole country and not just those in Dublin. Same for the incinerator. I presume you think it is neccesary but not in my back yard please!

Bin charge protests and breastfeeding

Comments