Bin Tax / The Late Late

Sparks

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Quit quoting this figure Sparks - because it's obviously not true.

Prove that claim or retract it Reef. I've shown you FOI-accessed figures from the councils, which are legally bound to be accurate to prove my case, where are your figures, in a press release somewhere?

ReefBreak

Like I said in an earlier post, from here:
http://www.stopthebintax.com/figures.htm

And like I said earler, 80% is complete balderdash if you use these figures.

Sparks

Originally posted by ReefBreak
http://www.stopthebintax.com/figures.htm
This is where the figures come from that produced the "80% non-payment rate".
The 80% non-payment figure is complete rubbish, you can take any number of conclusions from these figures.

Actually you can't. Not unless you reach by quite a margin, stating that people you've awarded a waiver to (as opposed to people that applied for a waiver) are supporters of the tax, and that people that have made any kind of partial payment (for example, a family that makes the first 20 euro payment before the bin tax protests started) are supporters. By that logic, had Clare Daly paid ten euro to the council before starting the protests, she'd be a supporter of the bin tax?

The best you can do is discard the waivers and partial payments from the equation altogether, and then the nonpayers have a majority of 533 households.

Sparks

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Like I said in an earlier post, from here:
http://www.stopthebintax.com/figures.htm
And like I said earler, 80% is complete balderdash if you use these figures.

That's not true Reef. Prove your point with actual trustworthy data please. Or quit calling me a liar when I'm showing you actual trustworthy data.

ReefBreak

No I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just saying the 80% figure is WRONG.

Total Number of Households: 64951 - 18627 (Waivers) = 46324.

Contrary to what StopTheBinTax.com might have you believe, waivers do not count in the total households figure.

Total Paid: 12786 + 6380 x 0.5 (Paid First Year) + 13839 x 0.5 (Partially Paid) = 22893

I have weighted "Paid First Year" and "Partially Paid" at 50% because it is impossible to tell how many of these people will eventually clear their bill. Going by the small amount of support the campaign has, I should really put it higher.

My calculations are:
22893/46324 = 49% paid.
13319/46324 = 29% Unpaid.
This leaves 22% undecided.

Quite a difference from 80%. And of course these figures are just for Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown. Fingal Co. Co. have reported a big increase in payments since the campaign began.

Sparks

Originally posted by ReefBreak
No I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just saying the 80% figure is WRONG.

And I'm telling you that the figure is based on the best data available in the public domain.

Total Number of Households: 64951 - 18627 (Waivers) = 46324.

That's the first bias in favour of one side - those who are proposing the bin tax are the ones who can set the waivers. Not counting them doesn't give a more accurate picture, because many who qualify for them don't support the tax.

Contrary to what StopTheBinTax.com might have you believe, waivers do not count in the total households figure.

Actually, they do. The council's figure includes waivers and partial payments in the same category as full payment of the tax. Which is patently unsupportable.

Total Paid: 12786 + 6380 x 0.5 (Paid First Year) + 13839 x 0.5 (Partially Paid) = 22893
I have weighted "Paid First Year" and "Partially Paid" at 50% because it is impossible to tell how many of these people will eventually clear their bill. Going by the small amount of support the campaign has, I should really put it higher.

And I would weigh them differently - ideally I'd ask each of them if they supported it, but then that would be difficult.

My calculations are:
22893/46324 = 49% paid.
13319/46324 = 29% Unpaid.
This leaves 22% undecided.

Even taking your weights as a given, your figures are wrong.
If you are going to weigh partial payments by 50%, you'll have to add the other 50% to the anti-tax side because you don't know how many of them don't support the tax and intend not to pay it.

Quite a difference from 80%. And of course these figures are just for Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown. Fingal Co. Co. have reported a big increase in payments since the campaign began.

They have, but the figures I've been giving you came from an FOI request and are legally required to be accurate. Your claim is based on press releases from those with a political motivation involved in pushing for the tax and are thus suspect at best.

ReefBreak

That's the first bias in favour of one side - those who are proposing the bin tax are the ones who can set the waivers. Not counting them doesn't give a more accurate picture, because many who qualify for them don't support the tax.

Don't even try and persuade me that Waivers should be included in the Total Households, because if you don't have to pay, you don't belong in the equation.

Actually, they do. The council's figure includes waivers and partial payments in the same category as full payment of the tax. Which is patently unsupportable.

That's why I've weighted it at 50%.

Even taking your weights as a given, your figures are wrong. If you are going to weigh partial payments by 50%, you'll have to add the other 50% to the anti-tax side because you don't know how many of them don't support the tax and intend not to pay it.

Fine. Weighted at 50%, my new figure for non-payment would be 12%.

...the figures I've been giving you came from an FOI request and are legally required to be accurate. Your claim is based on press releases from those with a political motivation involved in pushing for the tax and are thus suspect at best.

Ah, no. My figures comes from the slightly vague data on http://www.stopthebintax.com/figures.htm which I think is the same as yours.

SkepticOne

Waivered households need to be excluded totally. They can neither be included in the total and nor can they be classed as non-payers.

Some may indeed support the anti-bin tax campaign, but equally likely they are annoyed at their bins not being collected.

In order to judge the popularity of the bin tax campaign based on payment/non-payment the total number of households under consideration must be those households that are eligable to pay.

The you want to calculate the percentage of non-payers.

Cork

Originally posted by dathi1
Besides fairy stories from Independent Newspapers hacks on the late late.

I heard a few people on the radio this morning even blaming the manufacturers for producing waste.

You can blame everybody - but it is up to everybody to cut down on the amount they put into landfill. If they choose landfill over recycling - they should pay.

Sparks

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Waivered households need to be excluded totally. They can neither be included in the total and nor can they be classed as non-payers.

I don't agree with that. If you're going to judge support for the tax including waiver numbers, you'd need to poll each one. And dropping them totally isn't satisfactory either.

But if we're going to use the same standard for the anti-tax protestors as for the pro-tax proponents, the 80% figure holds.

In order to judge the popularity of the bin tax campaign based on payment/non-payment the total number of households under consideration must be those households that are eligable to pay.

And who decides eligibility? The pro-tax proponents. That's not exactly independent...

Sparks

Originally posted by Cork
I heard a few people on the radio this morning even blaming the manufacturers for producing waste.
You can blame everybody - but it is up to everybody to cut down on the amount they put into landfill. If they choose landfill over recycling - they should pay.

Cork, for about the twentieth time, waste put in for recycling gets dumped in landfill anyway, so it's not the fault of ordinary people.

Originally posted by Sparks

And who decides eligibility? The pro-tax proponents. That's not exactly independent...

What are you saying here?
That the councils are going around guessing who might be part of the bin protest and handing out waivers willy nilly, not to shut them up but to decrease the non payment figure??

To be honest I'm sure, eligibility, is based on merit.

If you can prove it isn't, I'll be out there with you protesting ( that coruption -not the bin charge! )

But I very much doubt it's the case, the very fact you brought that issue up at all is scraping the bottom of a very empty barrell.

mm

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
I don't agree with that. If you're going to judge support for the tax including waiver numbers, you'd need to poll each one. And dropping them totally isn't satisfactory either.

Yes, so therefore it makes sense to remove them from both the total number of houses AND the non-payment figure since you can't make assumptions about them. This is what I suggested.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Sparks
I don't agree with that. If you're going to judge support for the tax including waiver numbers, you'd need to poll each one. And dropping them totally isn't satisfactory either.

But if we're going to use the same standard for the anti-tax protestors as for the pro-tax proponents, the 80% figure holds.

And for the umpteenth time, waivers do not get included in our calculation of the payment or non-payment of rates. If you've qualified for a waiver, you're not in the equation. Who decides the waivers is irrelevant. Therefore 29% are unpaid by my calculations. Only the most twisted mathematics comes up with 80%.

We are not calculating the support or otherwise for the Bin Tax, just the payment rates. If you want to find public support, get MRBI to do a poll. I'd love to see the results.

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
What are you saying here?
That the councils are going around guessing who might be part of the bin protest and handing out waivers willy nilly, not to shut them up but to decrease the non payment figure??

Nothing so obvious, though in specific cases I wouldn't be surprised if that happened.
I'm talking about setting a rather generous set of criteria for the initial waivers and then, when the tax is accepted, progressivly bringing in tighter and tighter criteria.

If you can prove it isn't, I'll be out there with you protesting ( that coruption -not the bin charge! )

You might enjoy reading the Wicklow times today so Man...

But I very much doubt it's the case, the very fact you brought that issue up at all is scraping the bottom of a very empty barrell.

Nope.

Sparks

Originally posted by ReefBreak
And for the umpteenth time, waivers do not get included in our calculation of the payment or non-payment of rates. If you've qualified for a waiver, you're not in the equation. Who decides the waivers is irrelevant. Therefore 29% are unpaid by my calculations. Only the most twisted mathematics comes up with 80%.

So why was 80% the figure being quoted in press releases by the Minister and the Council?

We are not calculating the support or otherwise for the Bin Tax, just the payment rates. If you want to find public support, get MRBI to do a poll. I'd love to see the results.

You and me both. But we both know that the Minister and Council are using the payment rates as evidence of support for the tax.

Sparks

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Yes, so therefore it makes sense to remove them from both the total number of houses AND the non-payment figure since you can't make assumptions about them. This is what I suggested.

The same logic has to apply to partial payments as well though, because you have no idea who's payed only a portion because they've not finished paying and who's payed only a portion because they've decided that they won't pay the rest in protest.

And when you've done eliminating partial payments and waivers, you're left with 533 more households withholding payment than paying.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Sparks
So why was 80% the figure being quoted in press releases by the Minister and the Council?
You and me both. But we both know that the Minister and Council are using the payment rates as evidence of support for the tax.

Sorry, what the hell are you on about? "80% figure being quoted in press releases by the Minister and the Council"..."the Minister and Council are using the payment rates as evidence of support for the tax". So this fictional 80% non-payment rate is being used as evidence as support of the tax?

Originally posted by Sparks
Nothing so obvious, though in specific cases I wouldn't be surprised if that happened.
I'm talking about setting a rather generous set of criteria for the initial waivers and then, when the tax is accepted, progressivly bringing in tighter and tighter criteria.

Thats lovely can I come up with a random prediction like that to to support arguments in other discussions??
It would be nice, but irrelevant .

Whats in the Wicklow times exactly??
Something to support your theory that waivers in Wicklow ( where people have been paying for rubbish collection for yonks...) are being handed out on merit and not just to boost payment figures as that was the evidence I asked for??

Sparks

Originally posted by ReefBreak
So this fictional 80% non-payment rate is being used as evidence as support of the tax?

No, the fictional 80% payment rate is being used as evidence of support of the tax.

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
Thats lovely can I come up with a random prediction like that to to support arguments in other discussions??

Only if you can point out how it's happened time and again throughout recent history.

Whats in the Wicklow times exactly??

A story on how corrupt people in the council took bribes to facilitate illegal dumping. While honest joe soaps get charged through the teeth for their waste removal.
Which goes to show the levels of hypocricy involved on the government's side.

Originally posted by Sparks

Which goes to show the levels of hypocricy involved on the government's side.

For to categorically state that you would have to implicate the Whole council ( or the offending memers party ) in what you've posted.

In other words tar them all with the same brush...
Can you do that categorically or is it just those that may come under the force of law for wrong doing that are hypocrites??

If It's the latter sparks, it dilutes all the taste out of your point.

mm

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
For to categorically state that you would have to implicate the Whole council in what you've posted.

Indeed? And where are you applying that strict (and essentially correct, unless the council does not punish the errant members) standard to the governments statements regarding the laying of blame for the waste problem, and the comments on the protestors themselves?

I've no problem with everything being measured and accurate Man, but only if it applies to all sides of a debate.

Cork

Originally posted by Sparks
On While honest joe soaps get charged through the teeth for their waste removal.
Which goes to show the levels of hypocricy involved on the government's side.

The courts in this county are independant. Joe Higgins has given due process.

We live in a democratic state & the institutions of state deserve respect.

Originally posted by Sparks
Indeed? And where are you applying that strict (and essentially correct, unless the council does not punish the errant members) standard to the governments statements regarding the laying of blame for the waste problem, and the comments on the protestors themselves?

I've no problem with everything being measured and accurate Man, but only if it applies to all sides of a debate.

Funny you should ask me that, firstly with regard to the Governments views on where the blame lies for the waste problem 'cause I don't believe I've proffered a view on that end at all, and therefore you don't know my views on their views specifically.
No need then to run to me suggesting I'm not fair and balanced

And secondly I am essentially correct(as you rightly pointed out) regarding you unfairly tarring Every ( presumably FF ) councillor with the same brush.
They're all corrupt is it? every single one of them
I see.

Sparks perhaps apply a little more realism to your arguments, because, your last reasoning has them very dilluted from what I can see.

mm

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
Funny you should ask me that, firstly with regard to the Governments views on where the blame lies for the waste problem 'cause I don't believe I've proffered a view on that end at all, and therefore you don't know my views on their views specifically.

No, but you were very fast to correct me, and not fast at all to correct those arguing opposing positions...

But You were directing the comments at me for rebuttal as we were both involved in a discussion on this thread.
Me giving an opinion on anyone elses stance was immaterial to that discussion and still is as They are not discussing this with me.

If in a roundabout way you are asking me do I have one standard for you and another for the government , I don't and effectively you are presuming that I do based on no presented evidence.

mm

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
But You were directing the comments at me for rebuttal as we were both involved in a discussion on this thread.

No, but I can see how you'd think that. I was asking why you weren't applying those standards to posters arguing for the bin tax.

If in a roundabout way you are asking me do I have one standard for you and another for the government , I don't and effectively you are presuming that I do based on no presented evidence.

Other than the fact that you're being one-sided in your criticism...

Originally posted by Sparks
No, but I can see how you'd think that. I was asking why you weren't applying those standards to posters arguing for the bin tax.

Rofl

Sparks you're Hilarious.
Firstly Aren't you doing that already and aren't the other posters retorting back at you... do you need a hand or something

And secondly this is a Debate involving unrelated individuals, I cannot be held responsible for anonymous posters opinions nor do I have a responsibility to jump in with a correction of them if necessary when they are not presented to me for rebuttal.
In a formal debate you may have a point and you most definitely would have a point if it was the case that I applied differing standards to people or the Government when the debate is about them.
But as it doesn't arise and I haven't proffered an opinion out of lack of necessity in dealing with your discussion with me, then It's immaterial.

mm

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
Firstly Aren't you doing that already and aren't the other posters retorting back at you... do you need a hand or something

No, but why do I need more people to pick away at me?
Hell, isn't Cork enough to disturb my mental health?

And secondly this is a Debate involving unrelated individuals, I cannot be held responsible for anonymous posters opinions nor do I have a responsibility to jump in with a correction of them if necessary when they are not presented to me for rebuttal.

Then why do you feel the need to do so for this anonymous poster?
I smell bias Man...