1 Month in Jail

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
First, I do not support what amounts to assault and an attack on civil liberties in the first instance.

The blocking of bin trucks in no way harmed anyone nor did it restrict the civil liberties of anyone - the bin trucks were stopped...

But hang on a sec Dave....

aren't many people arguing that it is wrong for them to be expected to pay for bins to be collected, because it is their right to have rubbish collected.

And yet, the "fair and just" way of them protesting this is to attempt to deny others this same so-called right???

If protestors are not denying anyone their rights by blocking bin collectors, then having your bin collected isn't a right, and their argument would seem empty.

If having your bin collection is a right, then they are protesting by denying others rights, which then rejustifies the question asked by RainyDay.

JC, people ARE shouting about the tax regarding bins across the country but it is focussing on Dublin because that is where the Socialist Party have a large political base.

We have anti-bin tax campaigns in Limerick and Cork too where the youth branches run stalls - but no one seems interested.

And when did the Socialist Party get involved in this whole bruhaha? Would it have been, perchance, when charges were introduced into Dublin? Prior to this, were they campaigning for Joe Q Public from BallyGoNowhere who's never had a state-paid rubbish collection in his life ?

Where are the campaigns now for people who have been forced to be put on private water-supply systems because their was no free supply from the local council in their area? Surely they must exist???

Or could it be that once something effects Dublin, and Dubliners have a problem with it, then its worth complaining about as an abrogation of rights. Before that, it doesn't matter because the numbers aren't significant enough?

I do have a problem with 2 Public representatve being sent to jail for opposing the charges.

OK - getting back on topic somewhat....

He wasn't jailed for opposing the charges. He was jailed for breaking the law. Was his sentence a bit harsh - possibly, but I can understand why.

Yes, I know - someone can smash up a jet and not get jailed, and then a politician stands in front of some bin trucks and gets himself landed in jail. Where is the justice?

Well, see, the way I look at it, the law had little choice.

Were it to come down leniently, we would have had yet another deluge of bad press about how it constantly appears to be one law for the politicians, and one law for the rest of us (and one law to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.....oh, no, wait...thats something else).

Unfortunately, in this instance, things seem to have gone the other way, and now we're getting allegations that the law is still subservient to the politicians, but in whatever way they want/need it to be. If they want to ignore something, it gets ignored - if they want someone hit hard, they're hit hard......

But is that the case? Could it not be that the judge was looking at the situation slightly differently? What we have here is a politician encouraging lawlessness. Just protest is all well and good, but encouraging people to break the law in order to protest is not a democratic action. Personally, I think its a case of a severe punishment because someone cared enough to press charges, and ultimately we're dealing with someone who has absolutely no defence. Their entire job is supposed to be about the democratic process, and yet there they were, up on charges, for advocating that the public ignore this process when they disagree with it.

Perhaps the sentence was a bit harsh, but personally I would think not.

jc

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Man, try to see things from the point of view of a peaceful anti-establishment political party - much as this is alien to you, I know.

But what is the "establishment" as you see it, only what a majority of the rest of us want and that includes the rule of law and order.If you are anti that,I don't see you getting a majority behind you.

The High Court is a political weapon in the hands of the government - and in this instance it was used to stifle a popular movement by sending the highest profiled members of the movement to jail.

Thats a convenient view I'm afraid, the high court is the law of the land and is used by everybody.
In this case it has been used by a Dublin Council on behalf of the people it represents in order to prevent the unlawfull disruption of bin collections.
You could change that by getting a majority on that council elected who oppose the poluter pays principal.
Do you think you can do that? or is it the case that you want your way anyway regardless of what the majority think about how society should be run?

The government makes the law and while that government is as corrupt as the one we have, breaking the law, when done for political ends, in a non-violent manner and in an as unobtrusive and inoffensive manner as possible is absolutely viable. If it is in the interest of the people, then so be it.

well I suppose there I have my answer.
Well as along as you are going to continue to take that approach, there won't be a vote passed in the dáil proposing Joe higgins or any of his colleagues as Taoiseach.
And I along with the rest of the not so silent majority won't have any sympathy if law-breakers get jail.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
The government makes the law and while that government is as corrupt as the one we have, breaking the law, when done for political ends, in a non-violent manner and in an as unobtrusive and inoffensive manner as possible is absolutely viable. If it is in the interest of the people, then so be it.

But this isn't this just a polite way of saying "if I disagree with the law, then its acceptable for me to break it, as long as I do so in a manner I consider acceptable".

You are setting the standards that make it ok for you (or those like minded to you) to break the law.

I railed against the earlier comment because it counter-posed at least one absolutely outrageous and blatantly incorrect parallel - ie, racist violence.

Why? Those people are applying the same underlying logic to their actions - that the law is not doing what they want it to do, and that therefore its acceptable for them to break the law in a manner they feel is right/justified/acceptable.

The fact that you disagree with them is no more telling or significant than the fact that I disagree with you. If anything, its less telling, because I'm taking the stance that anyone using this logic as justification for breaking the law is wrong, whereas you're saying that anyone using this logic is wrong only if they use it in a manner you disagree with, or break laws you feel should not be broken.

If you feel justified in condemning them, then surely you must cede the same justification to anyone who condemns the bin-protestors on similar grounds - if you are applying your principles fairly and evenly.

No-one likes being compared to the extremes, and I agree fully that there is a difference of scale or severity here, but the underlying principles are identical - you both feel its ok to break the law in a manner of your choosing for a reason of your choosing. So while your punishments may differ relative to the severity of the law you break, and the manner in which you break it, the underlynig justification for enforcing the law against both groups is identical, as is the underlying reasoning for why both groups are breaking the law in the first place.

It is the responsibility of every citizen in every democracy to be as clued up as possible on the politics that pertains to them - even if to them, that is the local Council and nothing more.

No, it is not. It is the responsibility of every citizen to be as clued up as they so desire about the politics that pertains to them. That's the very essence of freedom.

jc

RainyDay

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
The High Court is a political weapon in the hands of the government - and in this instance it was used to stifle a popular movement by sending the highest profiled members of the movement to jail.

I think you need to up the dosage of the anti-paranoia pills, Éomer. There is no evidence to support this.

Sure, judges were political appointees up to recently, but the Irish judiciary has a superb record as NOT being part of the political process.

bloggs

There is a belief that just because Joe thought his crusade was fully warranted, the ends justified the means. Personally I think this guy was doing it as a political stunt. Remember there is no such thing as bad publicity. The Judge should have given him a fine instead of making a martyr out of him.

Remember Joe/his party supports people breaking into Shannon Airport and smashing up planes.

Sparks

Originally posted by therecklessone
Sparks, a few things spring to mind.
Firstly, the tax relief is for all service charges, including your domestic refuse collection, either by the local authority or by private contractors. What part of that is hard to understand. That means you can claim tax relief on bin charges!!!!

Indeed, except that the devil is in the details. Look at your example from the revenue commisionars again, but this time look at the second one in that leaflet - it points out that Person B is not entitled to tax relief on bin collection if a private company is collecting his bins and he's paying other local authority service charges as well.
Plus, many households will happily eat up that 195 euro in less than a year, so you're back to not having tax relief and that means double taxation.

And bonkey, nowhere have I seen people protesting to have their bins collected for free - everywhere I see them protesting having to pay twice for that service.

Sparks

Originally posted by bloggs
There is a belief that just because Joe thought his crusade was fully warranted, the ends justified the means. Personally I think this guy was doing it as a political stunt. Remember there is no such thing as bad publicity. The Judge should have given him a fine instead of making a martyr out of him.

Congradulations bloggs, you've read the dictionary definition of "politician"...

Remember Joe/his party supports people breaking into Shannon Airport and smashing up planes.

Except that in this case, he's on the right side. Better to smash them up than to logistically support an illegal war by allowing weapons to be effectively smuggled through shannon under misleading manifest list entries, as we've now found the US has been doing. (And is still doing, by the way).

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
And bonkey, nowhere have I seen people protesting to have their bins collected for free - everywhere I see them protesting having to pay twice for that service.

Which is where I come back to asking where someone has shown that people are paying twice.

To show this, there would have to be a direct correlation between the income tax you pay, the monies given to the councils by the national government, and the monies spent by the councils on the bin service.

I'm not saying it's not there....I'm asking for the people who are insisting that this is double-taxation to show me the figures. If they've already been posted, then I apologise, but I haven't seen them. If they haven't been, then wouldn't you agree that its a bit ridiculous that this discussion is on its nth page over who-knows-how-many threads, and no-one has actually proven this case and people are getting so fired up on both sides over what is nothing more than an unsubstantiated allegation?

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
Which is where I come back to asking where someone has shown that people are paying twice.

Rather simple, that.
Prior to bin tags, no local bin tax paid, income tax paid, bins hauled away.
With bin tags, income tax level has not decreased, and now a local bin tax is being demanded without tax relief to cover the cost.
Ergo, you're being charged twice.

I'm not saying it's not there....I'm asking for the people who are insisting that this is double-taxation to show me the figures.

Bwa-ha!
Post offical government figures on what really happened with your income tax?
Even if you could find them and McDowell didn't have you arrested for posting them, how do you know they even exist? Didn't you see Brennan's interview explaining how the LUAS tender process was run?

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Bloggs
There is a belief that just because Joe thought his crusade was fully warranted, the ends justified the means. Personally I think this guy was doing it as a political stunt. Remember there is no such thing as bad publicity. The Judge should have given him a fine instead of making a martyr out of him.

Remember Joe/his party supports people breaking into Shannon Airport and smashing up planes.

I was absolutely livid when I read this but I realise it isn't bloggs fault - it is the fault of the people who really do support such tactics - which in the case of Shannon Airport was the SWP - just as they supported the sit down protests in the North which got a hundred kids in the middle of Belfast arrested - and in both instances, it was the SP who knew what to do to help those arrested.

Joe did not do it as a political stunt. Trust me on that one. The last thing he wanted was to be landed in jail - hell, the man was looking for a holiday just before this broke out. He was standing by his constituents - and people seem to hate that. Clare even less so because this woman is now seperated from her partner and daughter for a month and Mr Murphy now has to tell Clare's daughter that her mummy is in prison. Yeah. A stunt.

Quoted from Rainy Day
but the Irish judiciary has a superb record as NOT being part of the political process

Can I see it?

Quoted from bonkey
You are setting the standards that make it ok for you (or those like minded to you) to break the law.

If people hadn't broken the law, would the Soviets have pulled out of Eastern Europe do you think?

Now, again, that is an extremity but bonkey, the law is a tool of the ruling class and absolute obedience to it is like being sheep to a slaughter. If people find ways to make political points in a non-violent and as inoffensive as possible, then they have that right in my opinion.

Originally posted by Sparks
With bin tags, income tax level has not decreased

But what has happened to the cost of that bin collection ie the wages of the drivers, the price of the diesel to run the lorries, the motor tax and insurance on the lorry in the intervening years??
I'll tell you it has all rocketed.
Certainly since we here in the country have been paying for refuse collection, the proportion of our income paid in direct taxes has fallen, and in the last 15 years by around 20%

So are you trying to say Direct taxes wouldn't have to rise if all bin collection charges are being being paid for out of the same kitty??
You are paying what the service costs to deliver.It certainly doesn't amount to paying twice, as the money that currently has to be borrowed to pay for bin collection, either need not be borrowed or could be diverted into other areas such as better road maintainence or other local services.
If the money is not borrowed, to pay for the increasing cost of services, it has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is direct or indirect taxes.
With what you are advocating , ironically you'll end up having to pay for it twice alright sparks, the second payment will be to foreign banks for the money they loan to the government for the subvention of these local services.

mm

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
If people hadn't broken the law, would the Soviets have pulled out of Eastern Europe do you think?

What laws are these?

gurramok

The waste charges are determined by council managers rather than by the elected representatives.
For the DCC, the minister forced the DCC to impose the charges in the first place by threatening to abolish the council if they did not pass them.
It took the unelected lord mayor(last one) to cast his vote on deciding the result of the councillors votes.
Thus the waste charges came into law by threats rather than by true democracy.

What Éomer is saying that laws that are implemented by unelected officials(council managers) via proxy of a government minister can be broken if there is mass will in opposing them.

Also this tagging of bins is only effected in small areas of fingal and parts of D4\D6 at moment.
It has not been implemented in the bigger suburbs yet where there are likely to be more disruption.
For example in my area, where you would be lucky to see a garda, do the gardai have enough resources to cope ? (only about 12 gards to police 50,000 population)

But the bottom line is that an awful lot of people out there have not paid any charges, i wonder how collection of these will be implemented.....there are simply not enough prison spaces

But what has happened to the cost of that bin collection ie the wages of the drivers, the price of the diesel to run the lorries, the motor tax and insurance on the lorry in the intervening years??

These rocketing costs you mention are not the fault of the resident. Motor tax rates are determined by central government, insurance we know is due to innsurance\law cartels\compo culture, price of diesel has a tax take.
Its mismanagement of economy funds that account for the lack of money to cover the costs you mention.

Getting a bit off topic but there are a few unpopular laws around including the ban on pirate radio stations(which i support) who offer more choice for the listener than the quango which decides which station has a license or not.
Simple laws such as having a dog licence are well known in dublin anyway to be largely ignored as a tax even though it has benefits.
I wont even start on the fireworks ban while its like a warzone outside now with sound affects of fallen mortars

Originally posted by gurramok

These rocketing costs you mention are not the fault of the resident.

They still have to be paid for though
There are council elections next year, where candidates can run on a ticket explaining their take on how rubbish collections should be funded.
One thing is certain , regardless of whether they are paid for via central funds or tags , they still have to be paid for. In order to provide a satisfactory level of local services something has to give, either an increase in borrowing or taxes.
Or in my opinion the implimentation of a pay as you use system.
I know of some houses in my locality for instance, who are sharing bins, and sharing the cost of the tags for example.
They re-cycle and minimise their rubbish as much as possible and thats commendable, and whats more the charge system encourages them to do that.

mm

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Skeptic One
What laws are these?

"In seach of Civil Society, Independent Peace Movements in the Soviet Bloc" records that statute 426 of the East German constitution prohibited men and women congregating "in a manner hostile to the interests of the East German Government" - which, I hasten to point out, definitely includes the riots that occured following the 40th Anniversary celebrations of the foundation of the DDR.

Similar examples can be found in Hungary - as for Czechoslovakia and Poland, no doubt there are equivalent cases.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sparks
Indeed, except that the devil is in the details. Look at your example from the revenue commisionars again, but this time look at the second one in that leaflet - it points out that Person B is not entitled to tax relief on bin collection if a private company is collecting his bins and he's paying other local authority service charges as well.
Plus, many households will happily eat up that 195 euro in less than a year, so you're back to not having tax relief and that means double taxation.

Sparks, take my advice, go back and read the post you took my quote from.

Better still, pay attention to this:

Originally posted by therecklessone
As for your final point from the quote I choose, I concede the point regarding the fact that relief can only be claimed for "tags" or "a specified annual charge", but not both. It is unfair, and is certainly something which should change.

That was from the post I suggested you reread. However, this is an issue that only affects those that have to pay a specified annual charge and purchase bin tags. You are right to say that you can only claim tax relief on one of these, but since the protests have been prompted by the actions of Fingal County Council, let us stick to that local authority for the moment.

Note the following:

1. The only service charge payable in Fingal is the purchase of a bin tag. NO specified annual charge exists. That clear? Now, bearing in mind that we both agree tax relief can be claimed on bin tags up to €195, and that there is no specified annual charge applied in the authority area, tell me how bin charges are NOT tax deductable for residents in Fingal. Please tell me.

2. You claim many households will eat into €195 a year quite easily, so they cannot avail of full relief on bin charges paid. As I have already stated in my previous post (if you bothered to read it), there are two price ranges in the Fingal area, one for those who can avail of kerbside recycling collection, and one for those who can't. The cost of a bin tag for the standard 240L bin in the areas with recycling collection is €5. The cost of a tag for a similar bin in the other areas is €3.

3. Here's the science bit...€195=(39x5) or (65x3)...now (as an example), recently we have started to recycle a hell of a lot more than before. Usually our bin was full every week. Since we started recyling papers, bottles, and cans, our bin is only half-full every week. Given that we live in an area where we don't have kerbside recycling, we could put a full bin out every week, and still fall under the €195 threshold. And even if we lived in an area with kerbside recycling, we've already cut our waste in half, so would need to put our bin out for a lot less than 39 times a year, so would still remain under the threshold. Incidently, 39 bin tags (x€5=€195 remember) allows you to put your bin out 75% of the time...hardly a terrible imposition.

I accept this is just one household I talk of, but I am confident that most, if not virtually all, households could cope with the "burden" imposed by the need to recycle to cut down on household waste and benefit fully from tax relief.

In fairness to Fingal County Council, the scheme as it is currently organised is both reasonable and equitable.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
Rather simple, that.
Prior to bin tags, no local bin tax paid, income tax paid, bins hauled away.
With bin tags, income tax level has not decreased, and now a local bin tax is being demanded without tax relief to cover the cost.
Ergo, you're being charged twice.

Or you werent being charged for it, and it was funded through other sources of income by local government (because they do have some) rather than by handouts to them from national government which was specifically linked to income tax, and now you're being asked to pay for it once.

What you basically seem to be saying is that you have no idea whether or not you're being charged twice....you've just decided to interpret the situation that way.

Post offical government figures on what really happened with your income tax?

Right....so you dont know whats being done, and yet you will insist that your interpretation of the situation - which is one interpretation amongst many[/i] must be the correct one.

Sorry m8, but to me that only adds weight to the "selfish" argument. You havent a shred of proof that you're being double-charged, but are insisting its true, and defending your position by saying that there's no way of actually showing that your're wrong without acknowledging that the same situation means there's no way of showing you're right either.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but anyone who disagrees that its double taxation has just as valid and strong a stance as you have when it comes to backing your argument with actual facts.

The reason I asked the question in the first place, incidentally, was to determine if the argument was based on fact or opinion - something the rules do ask people to be clear about, and something which was far from clear here.

You are now clarifying that its based on opinion. Fair enough...

jc

RainyDay

Originally posted by Sparks
Rather simple, that.
Prior to bin tags, no local bin tax paid, income tax paid, bins hauled away.
With bin tags, income tax level has not decreased, and now a local bin tax is being demanded without tax relief to cover the cost.
Ergo, you're being charged twice.

This is factually incorrect. Income tax levels have steadily decreased over the years that waste charges have been introduced. Income tax levels peaked at 55% in the late 80's hand have now dropped to 42%. The reduced tax leads to reduct subsidies from central Govt to local authorities which leads to waste charges.

star gazer

Nobody likes to pay taxes or charges. It is easy to start a campaign to drop a tax/charge and get people hotheaded about an new tax/charge. What makes Higgins right to protest this tax? Does a charge justify taking the law into his own hands? He's a socialist and believes in a higher level of social expenditure, you don't see him protesting for higher taxes do you? It is really cynical that he protests at this widdening of the tax base while demanding more state intervention and protesting more tax. How does mr. Higgins say we are supposed to fund extra public services? Money doesn't grow on trees you know!!!

Part 2.
In 1977 the government of the day abandonned household rates and undertook to fund the loss to local government with central funds. The bin charges are NOT extra income for local government to spend on new projects, they are to compensate for government not funding Local government properly. Benchamarking won't be paid by central government, local authorities are stuck with the bill. City/county managers will be increasing charges to compensate. Do you still think benchmarking should be paid? (I digress)
Stealth taxes were very apparent in last years budget, i wonder could this be another case of a stealth tax.

bloggs

Just a side issue, but one to think about.

The Army escorts for the Banks cash to be transferred is almost completly payed for by the State, the banks make hundreds of millions each year and they get this (almost) free service.

It cost the government about 40 million last year.

Perhaps the government should be sorting out this 'charge' before they start critizing the rest of us for now paying our bin levy.

bonkey

Originally posted by RainyDay
The reduced tax leads to reduct subsidies from central Govt to local authorities which leads to waste charges.

Even if it didn't, increased costs at local government (whether through inflation or new costs incurred by trying to improve the system) without increased subsidisation from existing sources would require new funding.

It is entirely feasible, in the absence of figures, to argue that while bin charges may have come from the monies supplied by national government that increased costs have required a restructuring of the where monies received go. Therefore, income tax may no longer fund (or may not completely fund) waste disposal, and the shortfall is made up by now charging for the service.

Note - I'm not saying that this is happening, but aurely it shows that there are a myriad of other scenarios which would appear to be equally valid possibilities, which would at least suggest that the argument for double taxation is by no means a proven case.

I would have thought therefore that at best the concerned public should only call for a clarification by local government to show that this wasn't double taxation, rather than an insistence that the charges were unjust because it "must" be so.

In the absence of such a call, and a resultant refusal or failure by local government to defend its case, surely the decision to fight the system is at least somewhat precipitous.

jc

star gazer

In the absence of such a call, and a resultant refusal or failure by local government to defend its case, surely the decision to fight the system is at least somewhat precipitous.

bonkey

Taken in isolation, i would have to agree with that reasoning. There would be too many assumptions to justify a black and white statement on the reasoning behind the charges. However in the last budget there was an effort to increase the tax take from indirect sources. Capital gains, income and corporation tax are taboo and so the government proceeded to introduce a whole range of 'stealth taxes'. Included in the 'stealth taxes' was a myriad of charges, indirect taxation, non-inflation adjustment of bands/benefits etc. Bin charges fit neatly into that 'stealth taxes' strategy.

bonkey

Originally posted by star gazer
Bin charges fit neatly into that 'stealth taxes' strategy.

Surely only as long as you can show that Local government (who impose the bin charges) are buying into national government (who impose the budget) strategy ???

jc

star gazer

Surely only as long as you can show that Local government (who impose the bin charges) are buying into national government (who impose the budget) strategy ???
bonkey

The strategy is the central government doesn't fund local government enough to compensate for inflation and local authority staff pay rises (ppf and benchamrking). (They save money that way).
I'm NOT saying local authorities decided on the stealth taxes strategy, it is just that they are affected by it. They have obligations for services and pay levels. By default local authorities had the option of increasing business rates or increasing service charges or reducing services. maybe they should have been able to find better efficiencies in the way that they do business but they chose bin charges, i would have said the same had business rates been jumped up. (granted i doubt joe higgins would have protested at that so there would be no one month in jail thread)

bonkey

Originally posted by star gazer
The strategy is the central government doesn't fund local government enough to compensate for inflation and local authority staff pay rises (ppf and benchamrking). (They save money that way).
I'm NOT saying local authorities decided on the stealth taxes strategy, it is just that they are affected by it.

Yes - they got less money (net), especially when taking rising costs into account. This would add even more weight to the argument that there is no double taxation on bins.

Taxes that you pay on your income are not going (or are going to a lesser degree) to the people who pay for the refuse collection service. Ergo, they need alternate sources of funding to make up the shortfall, which they are doign by asking the consumer of the service to pay for something which previously was covered by what they received indirectly from the consumers (via national government).

If they are no longer receiving the same money from National Govt, then clearly the money cannot be being spent on the same things as it was previously.

I'm not saying that they couldn't have made the shortfall up some other way, but ultimately the logic would appear to break down to whether or not you believe that all local government charges are a form of double-taxation and therefore unjust. You've paid the national govt your taxes, so why should you be paying local govt for services?

With that line, you might as well argue that VAT is also double-taxation and unjust, as is DIRT and all of the rest of it, as it is additional taxation on monies which have already been taxed.

Very quickly, the "double taxation" argument would seem to be heading down the lines of "almnost all taxation of the individual applied after PAYE is unjust"....

And perhaps it is considered so by those who are vehemently opposed to the current proposal....

But then why is it only an issue now, with this tax? This is what - to me - gives rise to the belief that there is some other nuderlying reason for the protesting, and that brings me right back to where I started from.

jc

oneweb

Originally posted by Cork
The government is not buying new jets. But is it acceptable people not to pay for charges for items they consume?

A €10 million jet is due for delivery by the end of this year.

Anyway, there seems to be a plan to introduce charging for refuse by weight instead of a blanket charge. So long as there are decent recycling facilities widely available, I wouldn't have a problem with this implementation.

star gazer

Yes - they got less money (net), especially when taking rising costs into account. This would add even more weight to the argument that there is no double taxation on bins.
jc

I agree, it isn't double taxation. There is even an income tax rebate on bin charges. i am also sceptical about the reasoning behind the bin charge protest, i think it's low on principle high on politicing.

Ultimately, i guess it is about how we want to pay tax. My problem with the staelth tax strategy is it hurts our competitiveness as an economy and takes from people's purchasing power. The balance is out of step in my opinion.

Cork

Originally posted by Man
I and the majority of people who agree with this system, are paying for the collection of somebody elses rubbish (ie the minority in dublin who refuse to pay) to be collected.
It is that majority who are paying twice , and by their protest those who don't want Bin charges in Dublin are arguing for that situation to continue.
Both that, and the strangulation of the poluter pays effeciecies is whats wrong.

mm

I agree. The vast majority of people outside Dublin have no problem paying for the disposal of their refuse.

Why should these taxpayers have to pay for the collection of rubbish from those who do not pay.

The whole double taxation arguements put forward by this bunch is OTT. Local authoritys have no obligation to collect rubbish. They don't in many large towns. Private Contractors have to come in & do the job.

Local authoritys also have no obligation in the future to provide free domestic water. Joe Higgins & Co need no learn that their is nothing such as a free lunch.

People need to take responsibility for their refuse & start using bring centres. Excepting local authoritys or central government to carry the can is not really on.

I am glad the Minister is extending the Payment by Wieght system countrywide. It is fair. You are billed for the rubbish you produce. It is up to you to reduce it.