What ever happened to the Anti Bin Tax Campaign

oscarBravo

The Corinthian wrote:

So what remains is that we are being double charged - we’re not discussing a simple increase here, we’re essentially being charged twice for the same service. That’s the objection.

No matter how many times I hear this argument, it never makes any sense to me.

It's a simple exercise in logic: if Dubliners haven't been paying directly for waste collection, but the government was collecting the waste anyway, then obviously someone was paying for the waste to be collected. In the absence of refuse charges, it must have been central exchequer funds. You are therefore correct: you have been paying for your refuse collection with your taxes.

The problem is, so have I. As have all the other householders throughout the country, who also pay directly to have their own refuse collected. So there is an issue of double-charging here, but not the way it's normally portrayed.

If waste charges are introduced in Dublin, the exchequer funds that had been paying for that service can be used for purposes for which they would have been required anyway, and would otherwise have had to be raised elsewhere.

HelterSkelter

oscarBravo wrote:

No matter how many times I hear this argument, it never makes any sense to me.

It's a simple exercise in logic: if Dubliners haven't been paying directly for waste collection, but the government was collecting the waste anyway, then obviously someone was paying for the waste to be collected. In the absence of refuse charges, it must have been central exchequer funds. You are therefore correct: you have been paying for your refuse collection with your taxes.

The problem is, so have I. As have all the other householders throughout the country, who also pay directly to have their own refuse collected. So there is an issue of double-charging here, but not the way it's normally portrayed.

True, there is double charging, the difference is Dubliners (at least some of us) are refusing to pay twice for the same service. If people from the country have so much money that they don't mind paying twice that's their business. But why critise the Dubs for standing up against this rip-off???

oscarBravo

HelterSkelter wrote:

True, there is double charging, the difference is Dubliners (at least some of us) are refusing to pay twice for the same service. If people from the country have so much money that they don't mind paying twice that's their business. But why critise the Dubs for standing up against this rip-off???

OK, I'll spell it out for you.

I pay directly to have my refuse collected. The people who collect my refuse do not get paid from central exchequer funding to do so, ergo any tax I pay does not contribute to the cost of collecting my refuse. With me so far? Good.

Some Dubliners do not pay directly to have their refuse collected. The people who collect their refuse get paid from central exchequer funding to do so, ergo some of the tax I pay contributes to the cost of collecting their refuse.

That's the double-charging issue. I'm paying for the collection of both my refuse, and that of a number of Dubliners.

Just so we're completely clear: if everyone paid directly for the collection of their waste, then no exchequer funds would be used to pay for waste collection. This means that your taxes as well as mine become available for other things, like schools and hospitals - and no-one gets double-charged for refuse collection. Everyone wins.

Zaph0d

The government provides some services out of central taxation and charges directly for others.

Some are only free if they deem you poor enough.
Which should be free:
education?
primary healthcare?
all healthcare?
basic food?
some water? unlimited water?
public transport?
basic housing?
street cleaning?
waste disposal?

I'd go for free transport over free waste disposal.

If everything is means tested there's little incentive to work.

With many of these services, it might be fairer to provide a basic service out of taxes and charge for the rest.

seedot

Zaphod, I think you have outlined the most sensible way to look at the bin tax / waste charges etc.

Ideologically there has been a huge shift in how we define and deliver 'public goods'

Wikipedia on Public Goods

While getting my waste collected may be of direct benefit to me - getting all the waste collected on my street is of benefit to everybody on the street. Waste collection was introduced to deal with public health issues which are clearly part of governments role. For this reason I would choose a centrally funded universal waste system over public transport - since I don't suffer if my neighbour doesn't get the bus - but I do if their rubbish is all over my street.

2 things from this
1. Dublin / urban areas are different under this argument since the externalities are more pronounced in higher density housing
2. It doesn't deal with motivations to reduce waste - which is a weakness of the bin tax campaign. However, a packaging levy (similar to the plastic bag tax) would have a more direct impact on this.

HelterSkelter

oscarBravo, was there a time that the council collected your waste and you were not billed seperatly, i.e. your income tax paid for it? Or has it always been collected by a private company, paid for directly by you?

BTW, there is no need to be so condescending in your replies.

oscarBravo

HelterSkelter wrote:

oscarBravo, was there a time that the council collected your waste and you were not billed seperatly, i.e. your income tax paid for it? Or has it always been collected by a private company, paid for directly by you?

When I lived in Mullingar and in Dublin, I didn't pay directly for it; i.e. everyone's income tax paid for it. Now that I live in rural Mayo, I pay for my own.

HelterSkelter wrote:

BTW, there is no need to be so condescending in your replies.

You're right, I apologise. I find the lack of logic in this debate frustrating.

HelterSkelter

oscarBravo wrote:

When I lived in Mullingar and in Dublin, I didn't pay directly for it; i.e. everyone's income tax paid for it. Now that I live in rural Mayo, I pay for my own.

Ok, well this my understanding (I may be wrong, correct me if I am) is that at one time the council collected everybody's rubbish and it was paid for by our income tax. In one of the budgets the government raised the income taxes to pay for this (so my dad says, it was in his time!). Then they started to charge seperately for waste charges outside Dublin, so effictively people in the country were paying twice to have their waste collected, firstly through their income tax, secondly through the waste charges. Now they are trying to do the same thing in Dublin.

So if Dubliners pay the waste charges then we along with country people are paying twice for the same service. Do you think this is right? We (by we I mean everybody in Ireland) are already paying income tax so why should we have to pay seperatly for waste, water and whatever else charges? Next they will be trying to charge us maintenance fees for street lighting, cutting the grass, etc etc. Where will it stop?

oscarBravo

HelterSkelter wrote:

Then they started to charge seperately for waste charges outside Dublin, so effictively people in the country were paying twice to have their waste collected, firstly through their income tax, secondly through the waste charges.

...and this is where the logic breaks down. Revenue collected as income tax, that used to be spent on waste collection, doesn't simply evaporate. It also doesn't get spent on waste collection, if that's being paid for directly. Therefore, it gets spent somewhere else.

HelterSkelter wrote:

So if Dubliners pay the waste charges then we along with country people are paying twice for the same service.

Nope. As I've already pointed out, the anomoly arises only because of the current disparity where some people pay for waste collection directly, whereas others are subsidised by everyone's tax. To make things fair, either nobody should pay directly or everyone should. To be truly fair, people should pay based on the amount of waste they produce. That can't be done through central taxation.

HelterSkelter wrote:

We (by we I mean everybody in Ireland) are already paying income tax so why should we have to pay seperatly for waste, water and whatever else charges?

Because we are direct consumers of those services.

Zaph0d

seedot wrote:

Ideologically there has been a huge shift in how we define and deliver 'public goods'

Wikipedia on Public Goods

From this definition of public goods it doesn't look like waste collection is a public good. It's neither non-rivalrous nor non-excludable.

Residential waste collection is 'in the public good' if the alternative is a huge public health problem. However, I don't see how this is true. In my area, you pay a small standing charge and then a fee for each collection and another fee for each kg of waste removed. This has not led to litter all over the streets.

Litter builds up during a waste disposal strike as people leave out rubbish, unaware of the problem, or hoping that leaving it out will force the issue.

While getting my waste collected may be of direct benefit to me - getting all the waste collected on my street is of benefit to everybody on the street. Waste collection was introduced to deal with public health issues which are clearly part of governments role. For this reason I would choose a centrally funded universal waste system over public transport - since I don't suffer if my neighbour doesn't get the bus - but I do if their rubbish is all over my street.

I was looking at it more from a welfare point of view. Free public transport may be of more use to a poor person than unlimited free waste disposal. Also they are very roughly equivalent in cost.

1. Dublin / urban areas are different under this argument since the externalities are more pronounced in higher density housing

like virtually all other services, waste dispoal is cheaper to provide in a city.

Kernel

ninja900 wrote:

Kernel, how are the Dublin councils going to fund themselves if there are no bin (or water) charges?

Same way they always have done, and largely continue to, with funds from the exchequer.

democrates wrote:

I'm thinking of doing away with the black wheelie next year, I've only put it out three times this year since I started composting and shopping based on packaging.

So you've turned your back garden into your own landfill? I've posted before about the problem composting causes with rat infestations, never mind the aesthetics.

seedot wrote:

do we only know about our public representatives if we are related to them? I know Joan is in Dublin City Council because she is in my ward - but this is not really too difficult to find out. I included it in my response more to show the quality of your information than because I thought it would be news to anybody. The rest comes from leaflets through doors, reports in the media, attendance at local public meetings etc. You know - politics, the stuff that you (falsely) claimed Joan doesn't do.

Earlier you said people like me were the problem with democracy, but I put it to you that it is the duty of the elected representative of the people to inform the people as to what they have been doing. I live in the constituency, and I and many others I speak to, are frustrated that Collins seems to have done nothing to deliver on her promises. If I am misinformed, so be it, but if everyone I speak to in that constituency believes the same thing, then it is a failing of Collins... not of me, or of democracy.

The reason why I ask are you related (which you still haven't answered) is because you have so vehemently defended her, and her lack of policies - as well as knowing more about what she has been doing than her own constituents. If you are not related, then I would guess that you are at least acquaintances? Or maybe you are involved in the campaign? Either so, those we elect are there to serve the people, and information as to what you are doing for your electorate is part of the responsibility.

OscarBravo wrote:

Or maybe - just maybe - there's a high demand for plumbers at the moment, and market forces are at work. After all, if your usual plumber has decided to put up his prices just because of what a bank employee gets (and I somehow doubt you've ever had a plumber rationalise his fees to you in that way), you can always employ a cheaper plumber, right? There's no shortage of cheap plumbers out there, right?

No, there is a greed which has contributed greatly to inflation in Ireland, and if you delve into the reason for this greed, one of the factors is our culture of begrudgery for those who have more than us. There is a shortage of cheap plumbers, or any other tradesmen, but not solely due to supply and demand influencing the market, there is also the 'going-rate' factor, whereby the basic price or going-rate has increased so much, that a plumber will not work for less. Anyway, it's a seperate issue to this one.

And, what you have quoted me as saying is not calling someone names. Look over the post, and you'll see there is a big difference to me saying that " ...you are a part of the Irish attitude of petty begrudgery." and someone calling me an "imbecile" because they don't agree with me. I'm sure you realise that?

Definition of an imbecile:

A person of moderate to severe mental retardation having a mental age of from three to seven years and generally being capable of some degree of communication and performance of simple tasks under supervision. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

See, it's now considered offensive. I've reported the post, but it seems to have been let slide.

Corinthian is spot on once more btw, and I also agree with HelterSkelter.

oscarBravo

Kernel wrote:

...what you have quoted me as saying is not calling someone names.

It takes an incredible leap of logic to conclude that telling someone they are part of the Irish attitude of petty begrudgery is not the same thing as calling them a petty begrudger. Not that I reported your post; it didn't so much bother me as illustrate your own point that calling someone names is an indication that you have nothing to contribute to the debate. Speaking of which:

Kernel wrote:

Corinthian is spot on once more btw, and I also agree with HelterSkelter.

It's obviously escaped your attention that I've debated the points made by both. If you think they're correct, feel free to refute my arguments.

HelterSkelter

Kernel wrote:

I live in the constituency, and I and many others I speak to, are frustrated that Collins seems to have done nothing to deliver on her promises. If I am misinformed, so be it, but if everyone I speak to in that constituency believes the same thing, then it is a failing of Collins... not of me, or of democracy.

I also live in the constituency. I think you are being too hard on Joan Collins. You have to realise it is very difficult to get anything done if you are not the party in power or if they don't depend on you for votes (as FF depended on Tony Gregory in Haughey's time). The only way you can have an impact when the main parties jump on your bandwagon as you have taken a seat from them in the election. They will do whatever they can to get that seat back in the next election.

HelterSkelter

oscarBravo wrote:

Nope. As I've already pointed out, the anomoly arises only because of the current disparity where some people pay for waste collection directly, whereas others are subsidised by everyone's tax. To make things fair, either nobody should pay directly or everyone should.

I agree 100%. I believe no household should pay directly for waste charges, it should be paid for through income tax. What do you think, should everybody pay or should it be paid for from income tax revenue?

oscarBravo wrote:

To be truly fair, people should pay based on the amount of waste they produce. That can't be done through central taxation.

Good point, but the current setup does not work, if someone manages to recycle 100% of their waste they still get charged for the green bin. That should be free, afterall the company lifting the bin are making money from recycling the contents. It is just not a fair system and as far as I can see is designed to generate as much money for the council as possible, all this recycle crap is pure propaganda.

oscarBravo

HelterSkelter wrote:

I agree 100%. I believe no household should pay directly for waste charges, it should be paid for through income tax. What do you think, should everybody pay or should it be paid for from income tax revenue?

I thought I'd made it clear that I believe everyone should pay. More to the point, I believe everyone should pay in proportion to the amount of waste they generate.

In my case, I pay a private waste collection company. Do you believe that I should not be paying them, and that the government should pay them instead?

HelterSkelter wrote:

Good point, but the current setup does not work, if someone manages to recycle 100% of their waste they still get charged for the green bin. That should be free, afterall the company lifting the bin are making money from recycling the contents. It is just not a fair system and as far as I can see is designed to generate as much money for the council as possible, all this recycle crap is pure propaganda.

I agree that the current system is flawed. I think the answer is to address those flaws, so that recycling and waste reduction are rewarded with reduced charges. I fail to see how funding waste collection from central funds can possibly achieve those goals.

democrates

Kernel wrote:

So you've turned your back garden into your own landfill? I've posted before about the problem composting causes with rat infestations, never mind the aesthetics.

Yes I have, I'm not a nimby. But it's not landfill as you know it, read on and relish the good tidings.

I got a good composter from the council for 35 euro, and I've put mesh around the base so tunneling vermin are thwarted. Rats would be attracted by putrifying flesh for sure, but you don't use it for fauna carcasses so that's not a problem, zero rats.

As for aesthetics it looks like a dalek which I like, but even if only ugly ones were available I'd still use one because it's the responsible thing to do (a bit like getting married Ted), and that's a higher priority to me than appearance. I don't feel entitled to engage in an orgy of pollution excreting hyper-consumption then snipe when I'm asked to pay for the consequences of my actions. Instead I go for sustainable thrift and am happier and wealthier, a better person than I was.

What had me concerned was the possibility of a smell even though I was assured by dlrcoco this would not happen. Even on hot summer days I got no niffs in the garden whilst sipping cheeky bordeaux, and when I lift the lid and sniff it just smells like fresh earth, not unlike the smell in the air when you go hillwalking after light rainfall on a golden autumnal evening. All the summers grass clippings, tea bags, vegetable peelings, shredded bills etc. interspersed correctly are breaking down beautifully as forecast in the council leaflet. I thought I'd need two composters but the volume naturally decreases at an amazing rate. Isn't mother nature great!

It gets better. Next year I'll get the benefits of the first batch of natural compost worked into the soil in my organic vegetable plot. Lower waste bills, healthy home-grown food, saving our environment. I commend the ecological approach without reservation.

Kernel

oscarBravo wrote:

It takes an incredible leap of logic to conclude that telling someone they are part of the Irish attitude of petty begrudgery is not the same thing as calling them a petty begrudger. Not that I reported your post; it didn't so much bother me as illustrate your own point that calling someone names is an indication that you have nothing to contribute to the debate.

Yeah, but I didn't call anyone names. I said: "...you are a part of the Irish attitude of petty begrudgery" - within the context of someone stating that if people in the country have had to pay waste disposal charges, then Dublin people should too. That's not a personal insult or name calling, now is it? You speak of logic, but your logic was flawed, even though you attempted to appear clever by selectively quoting me out of context.

oscarBravo wrote:

Speaking of which: It's obviously escaped your attention that I've debated the points made by both. If you think they're correct, feel free to refute my arguments.

No, I just happen to think nothing of your debate. Your debate proves nothing, adds nothing, and is not conclusive in any way. You have not refuted The Corinthian's or HelterSkelter's points, but you will, no doubt, attempt to wear them down - until they can't be bothered to reply any more. :v: :v: :v:

Kernel

democrates wrote:

Yes I have, I'm not a nimby. But it's not landfill as you know it, read on and relish the good tidings.

I got a good composter from the council for 35 euro, and I've put mesh around the base so tunneling vermin are thwarted. Rats would be attracted by putrifying flesh for sure, but you don't use it for fauna carcasses so that's not a problem, zero rats.

It sounds better than I expected tbh, but where do you dispose of your carcasses and plastics and other things? There would be a lot of things you couldn't compost, and unfortunately, even if you only use your bin 3-4 times in a year, you'll still have to pay hundreds in the fixed charge.

oscarBravo

Kernel wrote:

...even if you only use your bin 3-4 times in a year, you'll still have to pay hundreds in the fixed charge.

Seems to me the logical conclusion is to introduce a system where people pay based on the amount of waste they generate.

But I'm sure that observation proves nothing, adds nothing, and is not conclusive in any way.

Kernel

oscarBravo wrote:

Seems to me the logical conclusion is to introduce a system where people pay based on the amount of waste they generate.

But I'm sure that observation proves nothing, adds nothing, and is not conclusive in any way.

Indeed. Unfortunately, we have already ascertained that the current bin tax system does not implement a fair system of 'polluter pays' and that we have already been paying for these services in Dublin.

oscarBravo

Kernel wrote:

Indeed. Unfortunately, we have already ascertained that the current bin tax system does not implement a fair system of 'polluter pays'...

...which is why I'm proposing a fairer system. All you seem to be proposing is 'polluter doesn't pay'.

Kernel wrote:

...and that we have already been paying for these services in Dublin.

Actually, we've established that the whole country has been paying for these services in Dublin.

Kernel

oscarBravo wrote:

Actually, we've established that the whole country has been paying for these services in Dublin.

Yes, the whole country.. last I heard Dublin was part of the whole country too. So, we have already been paying for these services in Dublin is a true statement, isn't it?

Power to the people!

seedot

Zaph0d wrote:

Residential waste collection is 'in the public good' if the alternative is a huge public health problem. However, I don't see how this is true. In my area, you pay a small standing charge and then a fee for each collection and another fee for each kg of waste removed. This has not led to litter all over the streets.

I agree with the distinction between the utility I get from having my bin collected and the utility from having all bins collected. It's only if the waste charge results in bins left in the streets that we see waste collection as a public good. But 25% of the population does not avail of a waste service since the introduction of the bin tax. Doctors in Cork made calls for rubbish on the streets to be collected because of teh risk of Weills disease. This is before waste is left in back gardens and on corners in Dublin because of widespread non-collection. 25% will have a bigger impact in Dublin than Leitrim I would guess.

Kernel wrote:

The reason why I ask are you related (which you still haven't answered)

Sorry - didn't mean to avoid the question. I would be an acquaintance of Joan, didn't campaign for her in the local election, may campaign in future elections. So yes, I would know more than most people in the constituency but feel that while criticisms of Joans publicity machine may be warranted I know that she has been working on the issues she was elected to represent people on. I think HelterSkelter is right in the analysis of lack of coverage - but feel it is a bit pessimistic to say it is only through patronage of the main parties you can gain an impact. As an organisation the people Joan works with are still very localized and a bit patchy in the constituency but I think this is as much to do with the relative newness of the group. Tony Gregory and other Independents have built a machine over a much longer period of time which impacts on their ability to communicate with the constituency, which is as relevant as the large party links.

To OscarBravo and democrates points - arguing for a different waste charge should be distinguished from defending this one, just because you believe in the logic of a charge. Yes, any waste system should have at it's core the ability to reduce the amounts going to landfill/incineration. But as a way to raise local finance and motivate people to think about waste I would posit that the current waste charge system is a complete failure.

It was introduced in Dublin City as a flat fee with no incentive to reduce waste. People were encouraged that by sending off a cheque they were 'dealing with the waste crisis' - with no motivation to change behaviour. The current system in the city council area encourages you to leave waste on your premises for longer but still has little direct linkages to change behaviour.

Around the country the waste service has now been taken over by companies who, since like all companies wish to see their market grow, will have no interest in reducing waste or no responsibility to ensure clean streets in the way direct labour had.

It is a cop out from a government that has shown, through the plastic bag tax (among a few other pieces of legislation) that they can implement changes which will impact on behaviour in a positive manner. What is the govt. policy on composting (brown bins? what are they? how would they work?), why did the plastic bag charge not expand to include other packaging, We need an analysis of how to deal with waste - not a discusion which is based around defending / attacking a charge that I really don't see as contributing anything (have things improved in the 4 years since it was introduced?) but rather paying mindless lip service to a belief in 'market solutions'.

BTW, did you get flies in your compost, democrates? This was the first year I had a bin and there was quite a few towards the end of the summer - am I putting something wrong in? (just fruit flies, and no, theres no meat in it). Maybe wrong board

seedot

Kernel wrote:

but to name names, I'll say joan Collins (yeah, real name) for South Dublin C.C.

here

me wrote:

1. Joan is in Dublin City Council - not South Dublin.

here

Kernel wrote:

I live in the constituency, and I and many others I speak to, are frustrated that Collins seems to have done nothing to deliver on her promises.

here

???

which constituency do you live in Kernel? Despite living in Joans constituency you were mistaken in the Council (not ward - Council) she was elected to??

These people you talked to - they involved in any political campaigns? I showed you mine

Zaph0d

seedot wrote:

arguing for a different waste charge should be distinguished from defending this one, just because you believe in the logic of a charge. Yes, any waste system should have at it's core the ability to reduce the amounts going to landfill/incineration. But as a way to raise local finance and motivate people to think about waste I would posit that the current waste charge system is a complete failure.

So you don't agree with a fixed charge but you do agree with the idea of a waste system that encourages waste reduction (pay by volume/weight) and doesn't result in public health problems. Are all Dublin councils not moving towards this or there already?

http://www.dublincity.ie/sitetools/faq/faq_waste_management/domestic_waste_-_dublin_city_council_household_waste_collection_service.asp

What would you want them to do differently?

I get a statement from my council showing weight of waste per collection like a phone bill. Of course this encourages waste reduction. People leave out waste less frequently than weekly to reduce volume charges, sort paper and packaging, compress waste and recycle much more than they would have before.

HelterSkelter

Zaph0d, can you give me a breakdown of how much you pay, how much is the annual fee, how much per kg, how many kg's per week do average. Just interested in how it works as they are just charging a flat fee in our area (which we haven't paid but bins are still being collected).

HelterSkelter

oscarBravo wrote:

In my case, I pay a private waste collection company. Do you believe that I should not be paying them, and that the government should pay them instead?

Actually now that I think about it more I am open to the idea of paying for waste collection but not with the current system as it stands. I think the current system's main objective is to raise more money for the councils and has very little to do with waste reduction.

I say abolish the annual fee, just charge people per kg (at a fair price), so in that way if you manage to recycle 100% you pay nothing. The council themselves, not private companies should collect the waste and run it as a non-profit operation, kind of like the way CIE is run.

seedot

Zaph0d wrote:

So you don't agree with a fixed charge but you do agree with the idea of a waste system that encourages waste reduction (pay by volume/weight) and doesn't result in public health problems.

Hold on- I didn't concede that pay by weight / volume is something I would support - I merely pointed out that the version of the waste charge currently in place did not really encourage waste reduction (and if anything worked against this).

To return to the discussion about public goods - a clean street is a non-rivalrous, non-excludable good. As with many public goods it has a free rider problem - if everybodys bin is collected (because they pay for it) the streets are pretty clean. I can then gain by not paying for my bin to be collected, dumping my rubbish somewhere but still benefit from the fact that 99.999% of bins are collected so the streets are more or less clean. => any charge for collection contains the danger of dumping.

Seperate to this is the issue of waivers - how are these to be considered in any charge system? Give out vouchers for a certain amount of waste? Hugely expensive to manage i would propose and a source of endless complaints and issues.

I see waste as having two sides - the production of waste and the disposal of waste. By focussing on the disposal of waste, we miss the point that the most effective change in behaviour would be around production of waste. Changes in shopping behaviour (a la plastic bag tax) would have a huge impact on the production of waste. This should be a priority, but it is not even on the agenda. Give Repak some teeth (maybe stop it being an arm of the retailers / packaging industry) and charge for the disposal of packaging at the point of production / consumption.

As for disposal of waste - the crudeness of any charge measn I simply do not believe it is about re-orienting disposal to wards reuse and recycling. I really don't understand how the green bin / brown bin stuff is supposed to work long term. The one thing that a charge does is create the market for waste services allowing it to be privatised with the consequences outlined.

My personal preferred option: packaging taxes to move shopping away from prepacked goods back to fresh food, some form of local taxation which takes account of environmental impact (rates? tax credits? SF's stamp duty?) which provides the motication to recycle, funds local government but does not create the market for waste which encourages a growth in waste.

Zaph0d

HelterSkelter wrote:

Zaph0d, can you give me a breakdown of how much you pay, how much is the annual fee, how much per kg, how many kg's per week do average. Just interested in how it works as they are just charging a flat fee in our area (which we haven't paid but bins are still being collected).

€80 annual charge, €4 volume charge per wheelie bin picked up, 20cent per Kilo weight charge. I average 18 kilo / week. I'll pay €450/year at this rate. The standing charge is waived for those with low incomes but the weight and volume charges still have to be paid. An additional waiver for €120 of weight and volume charges is available to low income families with four children.

seedot wrote:

To return to the discussion about public goods - a clean street is a non-rivalrous, non-excludable good. As with many public goods it has a free rider problem - if everybodys bin is collected (because they pay for it) the streets are pretty clean. I can then gain by not paying for my bin to be collected, dumping my rubbish somewhere but still benefit from the fact that 99.999% of bins are collected so the streets are more or less clean. => any charge for collection contains the danger of dumping.

Yes, if too many people dump then the system is a failure. Not everyone pays their income tax. Not everyone pays their car tax and insurance. If you don't pay the dublin city standing charge you have to prove which private company you are paying for disposal.

seedot wrote:

By focussing on the disposal of waste, we miss the point that the most effective change in behaviour would be around production of waste.

Maybe we should do both. Why do you think a tax on packaging would be more effective than a tax on disposal?

oscarBravo

seedot wrote:

Hold on- I didn't concede that pay by weight / volume is something I would support - I merely pointed out that the version of the waste charge currently in place did not really encourage waste reduction (and if anything worked against this).

Right, which is why I'm suggesting that instead of blindly opposing any charges, people focus their energies on a system that actually has the potential to reduce waste production. If the current charging system does nothing to discourage waste generation, what can you say about a system where there is (effectively) no waste charge?

seedot wrote:

I can then gain by not paying for my bin to be collected, dumping my rubbish somewhere but still benefit from the fact that 99.999% of bins are collected so the streets are more or less clean. => any charge for collection contains the danger of dumping.

Dumping is an utterly egregious and anti-social behaviour. Any policy on waste disposal should include severe penalties for unauthorised dumping.

seedot wrote:

I see waste as having two sides - the production of waste and the disposal of waste. By focussing on the disposal of waste, we miss the point that the most effective change in behaviour would be around production of waste.

...and by focusing on the production of waste, we miss the point that it's the disposal that has the most direct environmental impact. What's the answer? Don't focus entirely on either aspect.

seedot wrote:

The one thing that a charge does is create the market for waste services allowing it to be privatised with the consequences outlined.

I'm unclear as to what those consequences are. You seem to be suggesting that private waste collectors will encourage people to produce more waste - frankly, my private collector can encourage all he wants, but if I can save money by producing less waste then I will do so.

seedot wrote:

My personal preferred option: packaging taxes to move shopping away from prepacked goods back to fresh food, some form of local taxation which takes account of environmental impact (rates? tax credits? SF's stamp duty?) which provides the motication to recycle, funds local government but does not create the market for waste which encourages a growth in waste.

I fail to see how rates will encourage recycling, but paying directly for waste disposal (in proportion to the amount produced) will encourage the production of waste.