Bin charge protests and breastfeeding

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
Because if they tried it with something more serious, they wouldn't have been reelected?

Course they would. When's the last time you saw the Irish nation remember a non-current issue when election time came around, significantly enough for it to effect the outcome.

Every single election we get the opposition (whoever they may be for a given election) coming forth and telling us what a crap job the government did in the previous term. Does this matter? Does it hell.

Most people will still vote for the same old party they always did. Hell, they'll probably vote for the same candidate if its anyone noteable, because these noteable, long-term politicians couldn't be the ones screwing things up....we need them....they have experience, right.

Let me put it this way....if FF actually did something so bad that it had the public and the opposition up in arms soooo much that they folded the government immediately over it.....I would still expect them to take a minimum of 35% in the ensuing election, even if the public opinion which forced them out was over 90%.

Sparks' underlying problem, that I can see, is that democracy has failed in this instance of bins. I don't see it as a failure of democracy at all. While we, as a nation, continue in the practice of not actually thinking about who we vote for (unless its which name from De Partee to pick), then we will continue to get the government we deserve.

I am not inferring that any given individual does not consider their vote. I am stating that, in my opinion, over 85% of the voterate in Ireland do not seriously consider their options. They do exactly what they did the last time, albeit FF, FG, PDs, Greens, Labour, Spoil, Don't Vote, or whatever.

In other words, I would be willing to lay money that the elections in Ireland are almost always decided by under 15% of the voterate, and that its more-or-less the same X% every time.

So why not encourage some people to move from the (100-X) to the X groups, rather than saying that abiding by a democratic decision is the right thing to do? Cause you know you'll never move enough.....

jc

Craptacular

Originally posted by Cork
From an environmental point of view charging for refuse is a good thing.

It will encourage recycling.

Not in its present form it won't. Do you honestly believe that every household in Sligo produces €700 worth of non recyclable waste in a year? That's how much they pay (according to the RTÉ news) for their bin service per year, irrespective of the amount of waste produced.

Only pay by weight can encourage recycling. The current bin tax in most areas just creates a new form of revenue for the local authorities. It does nothing to tackle the waste problem.

Pay by weight is being introduced in all local authority areas over the next three years. Maybe then you can argue that it will promote recycling and that, from an environmental point of view, it's a good thing. Until then that argument is nonsense.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Meh
So your figures are nearly six months old?

No - His Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown figures are six months old, his Dublin City figures are over a year old, and his arguements are about 17 years old, based my unique bullsh1t dating technology.

bonkey

Originally posted by Craptacular
Only pay by weight can encourage recycling.

In fairness, there's a lot of other things which can also encourage recycling.

Being pedantic, "pay by volume" is one

jc

IgnatiusJRiley

Originally posted by Sparks

Even when the law is changed to introduce those orders?

The law is the law is the law.

IgnatiusJRiley

Should the name of this thread change? It's been ages since anyone mentioned that woman who tried to use her child to keep out of jail.

Imposter

Sparks,
I don't think direct democracy can be effectively used in this argument for a few reasons. Firstly each area (Council) can set their own tax rates that cover the costs of the services they provide unlike in Ireland where central government sets these. This would mean Dubliners while paying less for waste than their rural countrymen (if the council pay for the service) would also have to pay entirely for services such as local public transport, in effect meaning that their taxes are higher.

Secondly any vote taken under direct democracy would have to have balanced options. A question such as "Do you want to pay for refuse collection?" would not be offered. Instead the question would be more like "Does the council deal with all waste management through higher taxes or do the polluters pay based on the amount of waste they generate?".

As for your idea of effective protest, I think you confuse the word effective with disruptive. Politicians are generally aware of protests whether they're disruptive or not. They just choose to ignore them just like they can choose to ignore the message behind a disruptive protest while dealing with the disruption through the courts as they are currently doing.

I'll answer back on your proof of double taxation when I get a chance to read the links.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Sparks
False. The government doesn't do that. They leave surplus cash in the accounts until the end of the year and promote themselves by saying that the economy is so healthy, there's a surplus in the budget...

Finish the story, Sparks. Where does the budget surplus go?

The country isn't run (sadly) as a non-profit organisation.

As a matter of fact, it is.

You raise a point that's tangentially related to one of my problems with how the country's run: current-year accounting. Very little concept of accrual or real forward planning, with the recent exception of the new pension reserve fund. But that's another thread...

The problem is central governments. Over the past years, local authoritities have suffered cutbacks in funding and in the extent of their powers. That's a central government policy, not one that anyone got elected to promote. If that policy causes shortfalls in local authority spending, that's not for the public to compensate for, but for those that caused the problem - ie. central government.
Clearer now?

Yes, thank you, but I'm not convinced it forwards your argument. As I said earlier, it's essentially a zero-sum game. Services have to be provided, and we have to pay for them. It seems fairer to me that some services should be paid for directly by their users.

Like it or not, it does free up tax revenue for other uses, and it will be used for other purposes - this year or next - because that's how government finances work.

There are proposals for implementation, it's just that most of them involve lots of duct tape and half the cabinet...

Seriously, there are proposed methods for implementation, but the odds of getting it past a FF/PD government is nil, as they've shown their contempt for the average citizen already.

So vote for someone else, and persuade others to vote for someone else, and let all the politicians know that it's an issue that should be seriously considered in the run-up to an election.

You may not be able to generate a serious influence in this election, or indeed in the next, but if you're passionate about this, and can find others passionate enough to actually do something about it, someday you'll make a difference.

As I said earlier, I might even be persuaded myself.

You're missing the point I was making - it's not a possibility to lobby a TD on this, because you're lobbying a TD to give up power, something that no TD in this country will ever do.

I guess you're right. The white-dominated government in South Africa will probably never be persuaded to give up power either.

Right?

The best route I can think of would be to get the None of the Above option on the ballot, and then demand a change to the system in the resulting electoral face-slapping that the major parties will get.

That's easy. Draw a new box on your ballot paper, write "None of the Above" beside it, and write "1" in the box. Persuade enough people to do it, and you're on to something.

Could be tricky with electronic voting, I admit...

Hold up there. It's also nominally legal to walk on a public road....

Again, to be fair, I saw three neat lines of tractors sheperded onto one side of the road on Merrion Square. Traffic could flow past, and there was nobody deliberately preventing anyone else from receiving a service they'd paid for. That's (one) difference between legal and illegal protesting.

Sparks

Originally posted by IgnatiusJRiley
The law is the law is the law.

Well, actually no. See, the law was the law was the law - and then the government changed it when the law turned out to be on the side of the protestors.

Sparks

Originally posted by RainyDay
No - His Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown figures are six months old, his Dublin City figures are over a year old, and his arguements are about 17 years old, based my unique bullsh1t dating technology.

Indeed? And your figures are where?

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
If you want to complain that the government did not use due process, or were in some other way "undemocratic" in how they acted, then surely you lose every possible shred of credibility in such a protest by resorting to the same type of action (i.e. somewhat undemocratic, or ignoring of available "due process"). And yet you're insisting that its ok "in these circumstances".

Actually I'm insisting that there's no other option other than accepting whatever they tell you to. There's no "okay" in this. This should have been settled in a court two years ago, but the government chose not to do so, and instead just caused this whole mess.

At best, Sparks, you seem to be saying that its ok for you to disregard the democratic options open to you because you have decided in advance that they wont work

Hold up. I decided nothing. I'm just looking at what happened. Due process was used in 2001 - and the outcome was that due process was then changed after the protestors won.
How the hell do you deal with an administration that operates like that?

At the same time, you appear one step short of frothing at the mouth (e.g. the apparently-increasing frustration that we won't stop disagreeing with you) about how the government achieved this by disregarding some of the democratic options open to them.

The frothing is all Cork's fault
And the government didn't disregard some of the democratic options, it disregarded all of them.

Sparks

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Finish the story, Sparks. Where does the budget surplus go?

The next year's accounts or into payments on national debt.

Services have to be provided, and we have to pay for them. It seems fairer to me that some services should be paid for directly by their users.

And noone is saying that the service shouldn't be paid for. Like I've been telling Cork for 20 pages...

Like it or not, it does free up tax revenue for other uses, and it will be used for other purposes - this year or next - because that's how government finances work.

See, there's the problem. I have a right to expect that I won't get charged an arbitarily high level of tax without a plan for spending that cash. It shouldn't just be sitting in a government account waiting for someone to think of a way of spending or investing it, like the national pension fund did. Anyone who's worked with government grants (for sports or whatever) can tell you that you don't get a cent without a plan for spending it, and that plan has to be feasible before it's approved. If the government demand this (as they should), then so should we.

So vote for someone else, and persuade others to vote for someone else, and let all the politicians know that it's an issue that should be seriously considered in the run-up to an election.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what a politician says. It matters what he does. And we all know what election promises are worth.
And there isn't a politician in this country that would willingly sign over authority to anyone, let alone the electorate.

You may not be able to generate a serious influence in this election, or indeed in the next, but if you're passionate about this, and can find others passionate enough to actually do something about it, someday you'll make a difference.

Nope.
The only pragmatic approach I can think of is to get rich to the point of bill gates, then bribe every one of the TDs in the dail to vote one having a referendum to bring in direct democracy. And you'd have to give them a shedload of cash because they'd regard it as the end of their careers.

I guess you're right. The white-dominated government in South Africa will probably never be persuaded to give up power either.

They weren't persuaded, they were forced by political pressure from outside and inside. There's no political pressure for direct democracy, because no politician wants it.

Right? That's easy. Draw a new box on your ballot paper, write "None of the Above" beside it, and write "1" in the box. Persuade enough people to do it, and you're on to something.

Do you know what happens then? It's called a spoilt vote and it's discarded. It doesn't count. It's as if it never happened. Which is right up the government's alley, but not the electorate's. Last time roud, there were 18,303 spoiled votes noted, with no check to see which were accidental spoils and which were deliberate. That's nearly 8,000 more votes than bertie got, but they get ignored. Hell, there were more than 18,303 actual spoilt votes, it's just that five constituencies didn't count them at all.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Sparks
The next year's accounts or into payments on national debt.

Exactly. In other words, our tax money is spent on something other than refuse collection - it doesn't just evaporate. That's my point.

And noone is saying that the service shouldn't be paid for. Like I've been telling Cork for 20 pages...

I'm not being antagonistic here, but I'm getting confused. How do you think refuse collection should be funded? From the general tax take, as in the past? If so, how do you reconcile it with the "polluter pays" principle?

Anyone who's worked with government grants (for sports or whatever) can tell you that you don't get a cent without a plan for spending it, and that plan has to be feasible before it's approved. If the government demand this (as they should), then so should we.

Isn't this what the Budget is for?

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what a politician says. It matters what he does. And we all know what election promises are worth.
And there isn't a politician in this country that would willingly sign over authority to anyone, let alone the electorate.

I'm starting to get a picture of the typically apathetic Irish person here: "the whole country is fscked, and there's no point trying to do anything about it." If you're not prepared to try to change things just because of a foregone conclusion that it can't be done, you've lost any possibility of earning my respect.

The only pragmatic approach I can think of is to get rich to the point of bill gates, then bribe every one of the TDs in the dail to vote one having a referendum to bring in direct democracy. And you'd have to give them a shedload of cash because they'd regard it as the end of their careers.

See above.

They weren't persuaded, they were forced by political pressure from outside and inside. There's no political pressure for direct democracy, because no politician wants it.

It was pressure from people with the foresight to realise that because it should be changed and must be changed, they were damn well going to stand up for what they believed in and make sure it changed.

Those people have my respect.

Do you know what happens then? It's called a spoilt vote and it's discarded. It doesn't count. It's as if it never happened. Which is right up the government's alley, but not the electorate's. Last time roud, there were 18,303 spoiled votes noted, with no check to see which were accidental spoils and which were deliberate. That's nearly 8,000 more votes than bertie got, but they get ignored. Hell, there were more than 18,303 actual spoilt votes, it's just that five constituencies didn't count them at all.

The only possible difference between your proposal and a spoiled vote, is if "None of the Above" got elected and the seat was left vacant. Now that's never going to happen, and it wouldn't be particularly constructive if it did.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Sparks

Like it or not, it does free up tax revenue for other uses, and it will be used for other purposes - this year or next - because that's how government finances work.

That's not where that smiley was in my original post - an insidious bit of misquoting.:mad:

Sparks

Originally posted by oscarBravo

That's not where that smiley was in my original post - an insidious bit of misquoting.:mad: [/QUOTE]
Don't blame me, I just hit the quote link on the thread.

Sparks

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Exactly. In other words, our tax money is spent on something other than refuse collection - it doesn't just evaporate. That's my point.

And that's not acceptable to people, not when they're then asked to pay for the refuse collection after having already paid for it. That's my point.

Look. Go through the audits for the council budgets for the year. Tot up the total amount paid from central government to the local councils for refuse collection. Then deduct that from the budget next year and charge everyone on a polluter pays principle. That would be fair.

What isn't is the way it's being done now - where the budget isn't affected by the lack of a service, it just sucks up the money that you were paying for it and then expects you to pay again. Not everyone can, for a start, and not everyone will lie down and accept it - which is what you're seeing in protests at the minute. Your point isn't valid if people don't have the money to pay twice - and that doesn't necessarily mean being below the breadline, it just means that it's allocated in the family budget for other things like college. Look at sligo, for example - 700 euro per year for waste removal? That's a year's college fees! And you want people to turn that over without a blip?

I'm not being antagonistic here, but I'm getting confused. How do you think refuse collection should be funded? From the general tax take, as in the past? If so, how do you reconcile it with the "polluter pays" principle?

I've said how I would like to see it funded more than three or four times in this thread already. And I've had to make this specific complaint of people ignoring those posts already as well.

Isn't this what the Budget is for?

Nope. The budget says "we expect X amount in, and we're gonna spend it like so". What the government demands before releaseing funds is different - they expect "we want to provide this service, the best price we can get it for is Y, so we need Y euros. Here's our plan for auditing the progress of the service, here's the milestones we expect to pass, here's how we'll ensure that the projects run to budget, and so on". Far more detail required, and it's a case of specifying the project and it's motivations first, money second, not the other way round.

I'm starting to get a picture of the typically apathetic Irish person here: "the whole country is fscked, and there's no point trying to do anything about it." If you're not prepared to try to change things just because of a foregone conclusion that it can't be done, you've lost any possibility of earning my respect.

You'll have to forgive me for not becoming a broken man over that concept, but you've got too much to learn, you see. The average Irish voter isn't apathetic - they're cynical. There's a difference - apathetic voters don't give a damn, cynical ones just know from experience that it doesn't matter how much you care about something, it matters who cares about it, and that nothing in this country ever gets down without one of two things - someone's self-interest algning with that thing, or a marytr. And there are precious few of those around...

The only possible difference between your proposal and a spoiled vote, is if "None of the Above" got elected and the seat was left vacant. Now that's never going to happen, and it wouldn't be particularly constructive if it did.

You don't understand the none of the above vote. It doesn't leave a seat vacant - it requires a new board of candidates be presented.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
What isn't is the way it's being done now - where the budget isn't affected by the lack of a service, it just sucks up the money that you were paying for it and then expects you to pay again.

So the government takes all the PAYE tax money that they were spending on bin collection and burns it in a big pile in front of Leinster House? Don't be ridiculous -- that money that no longer has to pay for refuse collection goes into other government spending, like health and education.

Paddyo

You don't understand the none of the above vote. It doesn't leave a seat vacant - it requires a new board of candidates be presented.

Do you know Sparks, that is probably the only good point you have made so far in this thread.

Everything else you say seems to be a load of socialist bsh1t - everyone deserves everything simply because they exist. It doesnt matter if people work harder, study harder, save harder, spend more cautiously. They should be treated the same as people who sit on their backsides and think that the world owes them somthing.

Most people dont like paying tax - and so most people dont like paying bin charges - but the majority of people are now paying - despite your out of date statistics. I know you will probably say that its because the government changed the law - but they are still paying - law abiding citizens.

Most people would probably prefer not to have to pay bin charges. But most people dont agree with the methods of protest being employed by the anti bin charge campaign. Its dangerous and is causing grief to the people who they say they are protesting for - people like me - I dont want you or the socialist party to protest on my behalf!!

Whether its double taxation or not, breaking the law to achieve your objectives cannot be right.

Paddyo

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Sparks
And that's not acceptable to people, not when they're then asked to pay for the refuse collection after having already paid for it. That's my point.

I'm aware of your point, and I don't agree that it's a valid one. I'm not going to repeat myself any further explaining why I don't agree that it's valid. There's none so deaf as them that will not hear.

Look. Go through the audits for the council budgets for the year. Tot up the total amount paid from central government to the local councils for refuse collection. Then deduct that from the budget next year and charge everyone on a polluter pays principle. That would be fair.

Charging everyone on a polluter pays principle means that individual households pay according to the amount of refuse they generate. How do you do that through central taxation?

Look at sligo, for example - 700 euro per year for waste removal? That's a year's college fees! And you want people to turn that over without a blip?

I think I'm paying 250 per year here in Mayo. I'm paying a private operator for that. If someone comes along and offers to collect it for less, I'll probably switch to them. I don't have a choice if I want my refuse collected.

I've said how I would like to see it funded more than three or four times in this thread already. And I've had to make this specific complaint of people ignoring those posts already as well.

Going by your last post, you want it funded from tax revenue. I don't understand how you propose to make that work on a polluter pays principle.

You'll have to forgive me for not becoming a broken man over that concept, but you've got too much to learn, you see.

Funny thing is, I always considered reasoned debate as a way for intelligent people to earn others' respect. I paid you the compliment of trying to earn your respect with reasoned argument. I had hoped for reciprocity, but if that's not why you're in this discussion, I'll stop. I'm genuinely saddened by your attitude, though.

The average Irish voter isn't apathetic - they're cynical. There's a difference - apathetic voters don't give a damn, cynical ones just know from experience that it doesn't matter how much you care about something, it matters who cares about it, and that nothing in this country ever gets down without one of two things - someone's self-interest algning with that thing, or a marytr. And there are precious few of those around...

Sorry Sparks, but that's apathy thinly disguised as cynicism. You can say "I couldn't be arsed because [whatever]", but you're still saying "I couldn't be arsed." Do something about it, or be apathetical - those are your choices.

You don't understand the none of the above vote.

That's because you didn't explain it.

It doesn't leave a seat vacant - it requires a new board of candidates be presented.

It's an interesting idea, but you still have to find a way to make it happen.

Sparks

Originally posted by Paddyo
Do you know Sparks, that is probably the only good point you have made so far in this thread.

Only from your point of view.

Everything else you say seems to be a load of socialist bsh1t

Not to push your buttons, but I'm not really a socialist. However the governments of the past were, and we're better for it.

everyone deserves everything simply because they exist.

No, we deserve not to be ****ed over because the government has a superiority complex.

It doesnt matter if people work harder, study harder, save harder, spend more cautiously. They should be treated the same as people who sit on their backsides and think that the world owes them somthing.

As a prime example of a family that worked harder, studied harder, saved harder, spent little and made great headway as a result, that's a load of bull. People that sit on their arses and believe the world owes them a living are generally the rich ones, not the poor ones. And unless you grew up poor, you won't understand that - nor will you understand how incredibly essential it is to not just abandon people on the dole like you're suggesting.

Most people dont like paying tax - and so most people dont like paying bin charges - but the majority of people are now paying - despite your out of date statistics.

Prove it. So far on this thread I am the only poster that's posted verifiable facts or figures. You've just waffled and taken press releases from one side of the dispute as gospel.
Until you prove otherwise, I'll trust the FOI figures.

Most people would probably prefer not to have to pay bin charges.

I'm sure that's true. But that's not why they're protesting. They're protesting because many of them cannot afford to pay them twice.
It's fine for you, who probably never had to worry about where the next meal was coming from. Quite a few of us here, I suspect, grew up under slightly different circumstances - and dropping 700 euro for a service you were already charged for is just not an option. That 700 is marked out for college fees for the kids, or payments on a morgage (if you were lucky enough to get a morgage before the house market went ballistic), or food or rent or other essentials.

But most people dont agree with the methods of protest being employed by the anti bin charge campaign.

Really? Says who, Mary Harney? Bertie? The councils?
What you mean to say is that most people who give press conferences don't agree with the methods of protest.

Its dangerous and is causing grief to the people who they say they are protesting for - people like me - I dont want you or the socialist party to protest on my behalf!!

Then you'll be happy to know that I'm not protesting and I'm not in the SWP - as you'd know if you ever read what I post

Whether its double taxation or not, breaking the law to achieve your objectives cannot be right.

Really? Works though, doesn't it?
<looks at Sinn Fein in N.Ireland, Al Quaeda getting US troops out of Saudi Arabia, Fianna Fail gaining Ireland's Republic status...>

Sparks

Originally posted by Meh
So the government takes all the PAYE tax money that they were spending on bin collection and burns it in a big pile in front of Leinster House? Don't be ridiculous -- that money that no longer has to pay for refuse collection goes into other government spending, like health and education.

Bollocks it does. Try Learjets and the Taoiseach's "Communicatons Department".

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Bollocks it does. Try Learjets and the Taoiseach's "Communicatons Department".

I was expecting this response. Learjets and spindoctors are utterly insignificant compared with the amount of money the government spends on health, education and social welfare. The vast majority of the tax money saved by bin charges goes towards stuff like health and education.

Sparks

Originally posted by oscarBravo
I'm aware of your point, and I don't agree that it's a valid one. I'm not going to repeat myself any further explaining why I don't agree that it's valid. There's none so deaf as them that will not hear.

And that sentiment is why there are people standing in front of bin lorries...

Charging everyone on a polluter pays principle means that individual households pay according to the amount of refuse they generate. How do you do that through central taxation?

*sigh*
You don't. Go read my earlier posts please, I'm not here to type them in every time you get curious, that's what those little page number links at the bottom of the page are for.

I think I'm paying 250 per year here in Mayo. I'm paying a private operator for that. If someone comes along and offers to collect it for less, I'll probably switch to them.

Good for you. If you were living in Sligo, it'd be 700 euro. Louth is 420 euro, westmeath 416, longford 400, leitrim 400, waterford 390, and so on.
In other words, you've got a good deal. You're also in a minority.

Going by your last post, you want it funded from tax revenue.

Wrong.

Funny thing is, I always considered reasoned debate as a way for intelligent people to earn others' respect. I paid you the compliment of trying to earn your respect with reasoned argument. I had hoped for reciprocity, but if that's not why you're in this discussion, I'll stop. I'm genuinely saddened by your attitude, though.

Tell you what, if you can tell me how tall I am, I'll change my mind.
See, my name is easy to find (I was the PRO for a sports organisation for a few years so it had to be), but you'd have to have actually met me at some point to know how tall I am. And if you've never met me, and I've never heard of you (Hell, I don't even know who you are), why should I be broken over losing your respect? Odds are, I'll never even meet you or have any contact with you save through here.
In other words, be realistic.

Sorry Sparks, but that's apathy thinly disguised as cynicism. You can say "I couldn't be arsed because [whatever]", but you're still saying "I couldn't be arsed." Do something about it, or be apathetical - those are your choices.

Again, you're wrong. I have done things about it. I'm just more realistic about the odds of success than you seem to be, and believe in efficency - find the most likely method to succeed, and pursue it. History tells us that for FF, that method is corruption and bribery. You may not like that, I know I don't - but it's the way it is, for now.

That's because you didn't explain it.

Probably 'cos I've done so before in more than two or three threads.
Try here for the proper explaination (and all the regulars know the URL I'm about to give you ) :
http://www.noneoftheabove.ie/

It's an interesting idea, but you still have to find a way to make it happen.

See above. Of course, were we ever to find a legal way to force it to happen, you know what the outcome would be - the next government with a majority would write an act overturning it...

Sparks

Originally posted by Meh
I was expecting this response. Learjets and spindoctors are utterly insignificant compared with the amount of money the government spends on health, education and social welfare. The vast majority of the tax money saved by bin charges goes towards stuff like health and education.

I'll forget about taking exception to the waste of ten million euros on a learjet and the loss of the resulting investment in the state airline, and instead I'll just say back to you what everyone is trying to say to me:

Prove it. Show me the figures.

(What, am I supposed to be the only one in here giving figures that don't come from a press department?)

IgnatiusJRiley

Originally posted by Sparks
Well, actually no. See, the law was the law was the law - and then the government changed it when the law turned out to be on the side of the protestors.

They changed it when the (democratically elected) politicians realised it needed changing. To this it is reasonable to protest but not so much so that people don't get their work done and others don't get a service they have (rightly) paid for.
I'm right, you're wrong.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
I'll forget about taking exception to the waste of ten million euros on a learjet and the loss of the resulting investment in the state airline, and instead I'll just say back to you what everyone is trying to say to me:

Prove it. Show me the figures.

Learjet: €8.4 million
Government spindoctors: €2 million

Total government spending in 2003: €36.7 billion

Combined cost of spindoctors and Learjets, as a percentage of total government spending: 0.028%

Sparks

Originally posted by IgnatiusJRiley
They changed it when the (democratically elected) politicians realised it needed changing.

You know, I could almost agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that they realised it needed changing once they were beaten in court, and the fact that rather than settle the dispute in a court with the protestors, they changed the law.
That's not democracy, that's continuing the mess. Had they gone to court and settled this two years ago like they should have done, the protests now wouldn't be happening, and you wouldn't be so irate.
Their cluster****, not anyone else's.
Play the blame game if you must, but at least do it right...

To this it is reasonable to protest but not so much so that people don't get their work done and others don't get a service they have (rightly) paid for.

In other words, so long as the protest is ineffectual and easily dismissed by those in power, it's fine. Actually risk effecting change though, and you're in the wrong?

I'm right, you're wrong.

Prove it.

Sparks

Originally posted by Meh
Learjet: €8.4 million
Government spindoctors: €2 million

Total government spending in 2003: €36.7 billion

Combined cost of spindoctors and Learjets, as a percentage of total government spending: 0.028%

That's not proof of what you stated though, is it? I asked for proof that the bin tax money was going to go on hospitals or schools or other such works, rather than on a learjet or the communications department, or other such abuses of public funds. You've not provided that proof.... yet.

Paddyo

No, we deserve not to be ****ed over because the government has a superiority complex.

I think maybe that you have an inferiroity complex - do you like any sort of 'authority'?

As a prime example of a family that worked harder, studied harder, saved harder, spent little and made great headway as a result, that's a load of bull. People that sit on their arses and believe the world owes them a living are generally the rich ones, not the poor ones. And unless you grew up poor, you won't understand that - nor will you understand how incredibly essential it is to not just abandon people on the dole like you're suggesting.

Your the person who has brought rich and poor into it. I agree that there are rich people who sit on their arses and expect all to be done for them. Show me where I suggested abandoning people on the dole - this is just you misreading a post to suit your own verbiage.

Prove it. So far on this thread I am the only poster that's posted verifiable facts or figures. You've just waffled and taken press releases from one side of the dispute as gospel.
Until you prove otherwise, I'll trust the FOI figures.

I trust what I see. Most of the bins I see waiting for collection have bin tags (Fingal).

It's fine for you, who probably never had to worry about where the next meal was coming from. Quite a few of us here, I suspect, grew up under slightly different circumstances - and dropping 700 euro for a service you were already charged for is just not an option. That 700 is marked out for college fees for the kids, or payments on a morgage (if you were lucky enough to get a morgage before the house market went ballistic), or food or rent or other essentials.

A really good case of presumtivitis. FYI - presumed incorrectly!

quote:

---

But most people dont agree with the methods of protest being employed by the anti bin charge campaign.

---

Really? Says who, Mary Harney? Bertie? The councils?
What you mean to say is that most people who give press conferences don't agree with the methods of protest

Ok - so we should believe the socialist party - silly me.

Then you'll be happy to know that I'm not protesting and I'm not in the SWP - as you'd know if you ever read what I post

You post so much crap that its hard to recnogise the solids from the diarhoea.

Really? Works though, doesn't it?
<looks at Sinn Fein in N.Ireland, Al Quaeda getting US troops out of Saudi Arabia, Fianna Fail gaining Ireland's Republic status...>

Great examples to pick - lets get the guns, bombs and hijack the planes - but you wouln't be doing it you would just be posting on a bulletin board about the great people who would.:)

Paddyo

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
That's not proof of what you stated though, is it? I asked for proof that the bin tax money was going to go on hospitals or schools or other such works, rather than on a learjet or the communications department, or other such abuses of public funds. You've not provided that proof.... yet.

You don't understand the way the government finances are run. All tax receipts, except for certain well-defined exceptions such as the plastic bag levy, go into one single central fund. Money is then disbursed from this fund to the various departments. The Minister can't say "Oh, I'm going to spend the income tax money on hospitals, and the money from VAT on schools", because all the tax money is lodged into one single account. So, in answer to your question, exactly 0.028% of the tax money no longer spent on refuse collection will now go to learjets and spindoctors.

Originally posted by Eamonn DeValera:
All revenues of the State from whatever source arising shall, subject to such exception as may be provided by law, form one fund, and shall be appropriated for the purposes and in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities determined and imposed by law.

Sparks

Originally posted by Paddyo
I think maybe that you have an inferiroity complex - do you like any sort of 'authority'?

Yes, the sort that recognises that it's "authority" is extended by the people that voted it in, not by some deity. Hence the phrase "public servant"...

I trust what I see. Most of the bins I see waiting for collection have bin tags (Fingal).

Wouldn't that have more to do with the protestors putting tags on all the bins?
And have you actually surveyed all of Fingal?

FYI - presumed incorrectly!

Good. Then you should understand why paying twice for something isn't an option for many people.

Ok - so we should believe the socialist party - silly me.

Actually, no - you shouldn't believe them, they're politicians. But the figures from the FOI request came from the councils - and the reason why they're more trustworthy than the figures from a press release is that there are laws requiring FOI records to be correct - there are no such laws for press releases.

You post so much crap that its hard to recnogise the solids from the diarhoea.

And now we're into the "attach the poster" mindset.
When I called cork a liar, I could prove the point. Can you prove that I've posted incorrect data?

Great examples to pick - lets get the guns, bombs and hijack the planes

Which one of those three do you classify Fianna Fail under?

but you wouln't be doing it you would just be posting on a bulletin board about the great people who would.:)

Wow. You've never read any of my posts, have you?

Sparks

Originally posted by Meh
So, in answer to your question, exactly 0.028% of the tax money no longer spent on refuse collection will now go to learjets and spindoctors.

That's incorrect. 0.028% of the 2003 budget paid for learjets and spindoctors. What percentage of the money that paid for waste removal is that? And don't say you can't find out, because I know you can, it's just involved. The local government fund was around the 580 million euro mark at the last time I heard (for some reason, that fund isn't that easy to find records on, unless I'm looking in the wrong place). Now find out how much of that paid for bin charges (there's a audit each year of all the local authorities and their budgets), and then the answer is simple. It'll be a lot more than 0.028% though, because that 580 million pays for everything, not just waste collection.

And before you say that's too much work, how do you think I got figures like the total number of spoilt votes in the last election for this thread?

Cork

Excellent editorial in todays Irish Examiner about the current "protests" in Dublin.

It highlighed - how little support the protesters actually have.

It then stated support for the polluters pay principle.



People have a civic duty to pay taxes. Local authorities have powers to impose charges for services they provide.

The ESB also charges for electricity. Do these "protesters" expect free electricity?

Do the expect free passports, driving licences, dog licences, parking etc?

Local Authories have imposed charges.


There is no going back.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
That's incorrect. 0.028% of the 2003 budget paid for learjets and spindoctors. What percentage of the money that paid for waste removal is that?

The learjet money wasn't taken out of the refuse collection money, it was taken out of the general government budget.

Victor

I must say it's the cleanest bin strike I've ever seen, all those black bins nicely lined up in rows

Sparks

Originally posted by Meh
The learjet money wasn't taken out of the refuse collection money, it was taken out of the general government budget.

Which the refuse collection money also comes from, which means that money that could have been spent on refuse collection wasn't.

Cork

Originally posted by Sparks
Which the refuse collection money also comes from, which means that money that could have been spent on refuse collection wasn't.

If these people paid their refuse - the council might have more money for social housing, street cleaning and the environment.

Victor

Originally posted by Sparks
Which the refuse collection money also comes from, which means that money that could have been spent on refuse collection wasn't.

But only half of the council budget comes from the local government fund.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Which the refuse collection money also comes from, which means that money that could have been spent on refuse collection wasn't.

Yes, and the exact difference was 0.028%. QED.

Sparks

Originally posted by Cork
Excellent editorial in todays Irish Examiner about the current "protests" in Dublin.
It highlighed - how little support the protesters actually have.

Yes - incorrectly.
When they think that there are only 100 protestors, despite thousands showing up at Mountjoy to protest the jailing of TDs, they discredit themselves in the eyes of anyone with a brain.

It then stated support for the polluters pay principle.

Which has nothing to do with the protests.

People have a civic duty to pay taxes.

Not always.

Local authorities have powers to impose charges for services they provide.

For the fifth time cork, under what act?

The ESB also charges for electricity. Do these "protesters" expect free electricity?

No, they expect to only pay for it once. Same way they only expect to pay once for their waste collection.

Do the expect free passports, driving licences, dog licences, parking etc?

No, they expect to pay for each of those things just the once. Same as they only expect to pay once for their waste collection.

Local Authories have imposed charges.
There is no going back.

Bollocks. The supreme court ruled, but there was going back, wasn't there cork?

Cork

Originally posted by Meh
Yes, and the exact difference was 0.028%. QED.

Landfill costs have rocketed. Environmental Standards Cost €.


Years ago - you could dig a hole and bury trash.

The person who creates waste has a responsibility.

Sparks

Originally posted by Meh
Yes, and the exact difference was 0.028%. QED.

Nope.
~500 million in the local government fund. Of that, let's (purely for the sake of argument) say 50% goes on waste removal. That ~250 million. Now you're looking at ~4% not 0.028%.

Sparks

Originally posted by Cork
Landfill costs have rocketed. Environmental Standards Cost €.
Years ago - you could dig a hole and bury trash.
The person who creates waste has a responsibility.

None of that has anything to do with what we're talking about.
Cork, how about you quit spouting irrelevant and silly soundbites and actually make an argument?

Cork

Originally posted by Sparks

When they think that there are only 100 protestors, despite thousands showing up at Mountjoy to protest the jailing of TDs, they discredit themselves in the eyes of anyone with a brain.

The Examiner is a fine publication.

Local authorities have powers to impose charges for services they provide.

You seem to have no problems with local authorities imposing charges for driving licences?

But - imposing charges for refuse?

What services do you think local authorities should charge for?

Could you list the political groups who are protesting and the % national vote they received at the last election?

Did Dublin Councillors vote on these charges?

Cork

Originally posted by Sparks
Nope.
~500 million in the local government fund. Of that, let's (purely for the sake of argument) say 50% goes on waste removal. That ~250 million. Now you're looking at ~4% not 0.028%.

Commercial Operators should take over the service from local authorities.

LOcal Authorities have more important issues to tackle than collecting bins.

I think the private sector will probably provide a more efficent service.

Over 50% of refuse is collected by commercial companies anyway.

Victor

Originally posted by Victor
But only half of the council budget comes from the local government fund.

Apologies it's only about 10% http://www.dublincity.ie/services/finance2.html

Originally posted by Sparks
When they think that there are only 100 protestors, despite thousands showing up at Mountjoy to protest the jailing of TDs`

Which TDs, I don't think anyone protested the jailing of Liam Lawlor (other than Liam Lawlor).

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Nope.
~500 million in the local government fund. Of that, let's (purely for the sake of argument) say 50% goes on waste removal. That ~250 million. Now you're looking at ~4% not 0.028%.

You're making the completely unwarranted and unlikely assumption that the government took all the money to pay for the jet away from refuse collection.

Sparks

Originally posted by Cork
If these people paid their refuse - the council might have more money for social housing, street cleaning and the environment.

Those people did pay their refuse bill.
Now, if FF/PD government would stop wasting money on things that amount to abuses of public funds, we might have more money for needed services and works.

The Examiner is a fine publication.

Even though it's so inaccurate?

You seem to have no problems with local authorities imposing charges for driving licences?

Don't have a problem with it, but it's got nothing to do with the topic at hand.

But - imposing charges for refuse?

As I said cork, right from the first post, right through twenty-odd pages of posts, mostly to you, noone is saying they want a free service. They're saying they'll only pay once.

Could you list the political groups who are protesting and the % national vote they received at the last election?

Nope. 'Cos I don't care about the politicians, they're nothing more than white noise. All politicians are self-serving, though some (like Fianna Fail and Fine Gael) are worse than others by a large margin.
And this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Did Dublin Councillors vote on these charges?

Yup - 24 for, 21 against, one (gay mitchell) hiding in the toilets (no, I'm not joking), and five abstentions and one who didn't even show up for the vote. That was in 2002. Then this year, in January, they voted to raise the tax by 29%. The vote split, 23-23 and the lord mayor (*coughBertie'sBrothercough*) cast the deciding vote for the raise.

Commercial Operators should take over the service from local authorities.

They most assuredly should not. Privitisation would be a mistake, as has been shown time and again in this country (anyone remember Eircom?) and the UK (anyone remember Thatcher?) and we don't need to repeat mistakes, not with FF and the PDs making enough original ones for the next decade on their own.

LOcal Authorities have more important issues to tackle than collecting bins.

Not according to every piece of legislation written on L.A.s and waste management since 1996. Not according to the expensive as campaign that FF just paid for with our money and which started showing tonight on RTE. You disagreeing with Fianna Fail Cork? There may be hope for you yet!

I think the private sector will probably provide a more efficent service.

Doubtful. Far more likely that they'll provide a half-assed service that charges the maximum amount for the minimum amount of work needed. That's the free market for you...

Over 50% of refuse is collected by commercial companies anyway.

And over 98.5% of the waste in this country comes from sources other than private homes.
(Hey, if we're gonna quote irrelevant statistics...)

Originally posted by Meh
You're making the completely unwarranted and unlikely assumption that the government took all the money to pay for the jet away from refuse collection.

No, I'm saying that the money that should have gone on the bin charges got diverted elsewhere. How much of that does the learjet represent? Or the communications department? Or the other examples of abuse of public funds?
See where I'm looking at now?

Originally posted by Victor
Apologies it's only about 10%

And 20% from "other government grants" and 8% from other local authorities.[/quote]

Victor

Originally posted by Sparks
8% from other local authorities.

For services rendered - most likely water and sewerage Dun Laoghaire sewage is treated in the City Council plant in Ringsend, Tallaght water comes from City Council plants in the Dublin mountains.

Sparks

Originally posted by Victor
For services rendered - most likely water and sewerage

Yes, most likely - but had I submitted those figures, you can be sure I'd have been castigated for submitting vague data...