Proposed carbon tax

thethedev

Carbon tax is the biggest load of bollox ever.
Only 3% of the carbon created every year is created by human activities.
In the 70's they thought the world was heading for an ice age. Now they think its getting warmer?
I've never heard such bull****, someone needs to shoot that Al Gore asshole.
Dont we already pay a carbon tax anyway?
Huge taxes on cars with bigger engines and a massive tax on fuel?
TBH I dont mind the government looking for more money, just dont ****ing insult my intelligence....

Liam Byrne

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Thus if you prefer to live in area where it is more costly to supply the infrastructure then you should not expect the same standards.

I'd gather that this means that the Dubs shouldn't really expect the M50, the Luas or the Port Tunnel, then ?

Because whatever about the initial, projected costs of those being proportional to the number of people using them, the final costs and over-runs, combined with the ridiculous State buyout of the M50 toll bridge - are WAY over what was originally projected, and I'd argue that they've been subsidised by both the rural-dwellers and those living the other cities.

Add in the mental cost of what would - up to now - have been viewed as "potential development land" (with the resulting OTT price tags) in those areas, and there's a compelling argument that it could well be cheaper to provide proper services and infrastructure to the rest of the country, and thereby lower the costs, reduce commuting, and improve quality of life.

Also : Limerick to Galway train trip = via Dublin.......it's no wonder people use their cars!

The "if you build it (and make it affordable) they will come" logic does not, unfortunately, apply to planning and foresight (if such a thing exists) in Ireland.

leninbenjamin

Kered75 wrote: »

But you must be living in some kind of fantasy world about 100 years into the future,this is Ireland.The very same party that wants to bring in this tax is currently shacked up in govenment with a party that decided to have most jobs located in the urban parts of the country whilst making the people that had to work, live in rural areas and commuter towns ,often with no services at all.Most people could not afford house close to their jobs, due to the way govenments in this country rezoned land keeping prices high.Many more like myself are living in an area were there is little or no employment so therefore have to travel long distances to work.

Hence my emphasis on proper town planning. I don't have many major disagreements with what you say there, but that doesn't necessarily mean we must continue living this way as a nation.

Kered75 wrote: »

This is just another tax on the motorist who already coughs up huge amounts to this govenment to keep in them in their chauffer driven cars Greens included.

You're right. I disagree entirely with how our current shower are going to implement this. Any carbon tax should not be a drain on the economy, the gains of it should be redirected into encouraging sustainable living.

Kered75 wrote: »

So let me get this you want those of us that live in rural areas not to have to cummute to cities and large towns to find work yet you don't think that these areas should have proper infrastructure which may give people a chance to find work more locally in the future.
Should the whole country just move to Dublin then???Galway maybe??

You're missing the point. Rural development should focus on creating jobs in those rural areas, not facilitating commuters, in order to encourage a more sustainable way of life.

Secondly, you're ignoring my point about the cost per head. If additional infrastructure creates more jobs in those areas, then it obviously will lower the total cost to society, as the cost is offset by the gain in employment. But if it just results in people applying for jobs much further away from their place of residence then it increases the cost to society. It's a balancing act, perhaps something I should have stressed.

But generally, yes. Long commutes are wasteful and lower the overall quality of life. I really think it's something that the government should actively discourage. You may call that idealistic if you like...

thethedev wrote: »

In the 70's they thought the world was heading for an ice age. Now they think its getting warmer?

Global warming does lead to an ice age afaik. I don't fully understand it, but I think the general consensus is that when the earth warms up enough it causes the ocean currents and winds to break down, which prevents the redistribution of the heat. The result is that areas closer to the poles (e.g. Europe) become much, much colder. In between is chaos, storms, extremes, etc.

eamo127

Carbon tax - the greatest con job in history. Pure propaganda i.e. pony up or the earth gets it! Cap and trade will destroy countless jobs and penalise those who can least afford it. I cannot stress enough the folly of this great swindle.

RCIRL

eamo127 wrote: »

Carbon tax - the greatest con job in history. Pure propaganda i.e. pony up or the earth gets it! Cap and trade will destroy countless jobs and penalise those who can least afford it. I cannot stress enough the folly of this great swindle.

100% correct, pure b****** coming from headless chickens. Its called pilferage, robbing, theft, penny pinching. These are acts that come from the lowest forms of life when desperate for money. God only knows what other b******* tax will come out in the new budget. I wouldn't be surprised if the Greens introduce a breathing of "air" tax. Breathing air is harmful for the environment so it must be taxed, it will control our excessive breathing.

Scofflaw

Again, can we tone down the language, please. If you have a point, then lots of asterisks won't strengthen it - and if you don't have a point, then lots of asterisks won't either compensate for that fact or hide it.

If your entire point is "blargh I hate taxes" or "blargh I hate Greens", or a combination thereof, as it is for many of these posts, feel free not to waste the pixels.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Heroditas

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I don't fully understand it, but I think the general consensus is that when the earth warms up enough it causes the ocean currents and winds to break down, which prevents the redistribution of the heat. The result is that areas closer to the poles (e.g. Europe) become much, much colder. In between is chaos, storms, extremes, etc.

Yet they say that within the next few years, the North Pole will be free of ice in the summer.
It's these sort of contradictions that make an awful lot of people skeptical

Kered75

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Secondly, you're ignoring my point about the cost per head. If additional infrastructure creates more jobs in those areas, then it obviously will lower the total cost to society, as the cost is offset by the gain in employment. But if it just results in people applying for jobs much further away from their place of residence then it increases the cost to society. It's a balancing act, perhaps something I should have stressed.

But what kind of infrastructure do you want in rural areas when you have already stated that broadband isn't a cost effective option??Tree lined avenues maybe??

Long Onion

leninbenjamin, my problem with your concept is that I can see no coherency. You argued that I should have to pay a higher tax due to the fact that I chose to live in a rural area where the cost of providing infrastructure was higher.

I pointed out that I already pay extra for the poor infrastructure (i.e. pay extra to the esb for connection, pay for water, pay for bins) I then point out that other infrastructure is not provided (no public transport, no broadband, no sewage etc.).

You answer is : a) You should pay for the infrastructure because you live in a ruaral area; and

b) You should not be provided with infrastructure because you live in a rural area.

Which is it? Am I entitled to it if I pay (which I do)
Or am I not entitled to it (despite the fact that I pay a good deal of tax) because I live in the countryside

If the latter, why should I not have a tax relief as a rural dweller?

Stark

Long Onion wrote: »

The law has long been of the opinion that one has the right to reside in his or her chosen place in peace. If you move into an appartment above a public house you can force the pub below to police noise levels - if they do not do this they could be held liable for nuisance. You seem to be arguing that the governments failure to provide adequate infrastructure is more legitimate than my desire to choose where I wish to rear my family.

I disagree.

The law isn't of the opinion that you should get a personal motorway from whatever random place you choose to setup home to whatever random place you choose to work.

Stark

Long Onion wrote: »

leninbenjamin, my problem with your concept is that I can see no coherency. You argued that I should have to pay a higher tax due to the fact that I chose to live in a rural area where the cost of providing infrastructure was higher.

I pointed out that I already pay extra for the poor infrastructure (i.e. pay extra to the esb for connection, pay for water, pay for bins) I then point out that other infrastructure is not provided (no public transport, no broadband, no sewage etc.).

You answer is : a) You should pay for the infrastructure because you live in a ruaral area; and

b) You should not be provided with infrastructure because you live in a rural area.

Which is it? Am I entitled to it if I pay (which I do)
Or am I not entitled to it (despite the fact that I pay a good deal of tax) because I live in the countryside

If the latter, why should I not have a tax relief as a rural dweller?

You pay less for your house as it's in the middle of nowhere away from established facilities. The cost per person of delivering infrastructure to you is far greater than it is for delivering infrastructure to a town or a city. People in dense population areas are treated to better facilities because they're essentially pooling their tax contributions and benefiting from economies of scale. There's no way someone living in a house on their own in the middle of the country could contribute enough tax to justify the entire infrastructure of a city being provided. Public transport? Do you expect them to run empty buses up and down all day long just in case you decide to leave the car at home one day?

Long Onion

Stark wrote: »

The law isn't of the opinion that you should get a personal motorway from whatever random place you choose to setup home to whatever random place you choose to work.

I was not requesting increased infrastructure - I was making the point that, if I am forced to travel a long distance to work because:

a) The lack of investment outside urban centres has resulted in a scarcity of jobs; and

b) The lack of spending has resulted in non-existent public transport

Then I shouldn't be forced to pay extra for this, especially when urban dwellers have access to better infrastructure thus making their use of private motor vehicles even more unnecessary.

I am fine with not having a motorway, I am not fine with having to pay on a polluter pays principle when my hand is forced to a larger extent then others.

Long Onion

Stark wrote: »

You pay less for your house as it's in the middle of nowhere away from established facilities. The cost per person of delivering infrastructure to you is far greater than it is for delivering infrastructure to a town or a city. People in dense population areas are treated to better facilities because they're essentially pooling their tax contributions and benefiting from economies of scale. There's no way someone living in a house on their own in the middle of the country could contribute enough tax to justify the entire infrastructure of a city being provided. Public transport? Do you expect them to run empty buses up and down all day long just in case you decide to leave the car at home one day?

Please se my response above. Please read the totality of my posts in context. Please note that I recieve no infrastructure that I do not pay for, I built my own home - the cost was not influenced by location - the site was a wedding gift.

If you can point out to me the free services that I recieve which subsidise my choice of location I would be greatful, otherwise I will see that your post is simply reflective of the fact that you have not read my arguments in context.

Kered75

Stark wrote: »

You pay less for your house as it's in the middle of nowhere away from established facilities. The cost per person of delivering infrastructure to you is far greater than it is for delivering infrastructure to a town or a city

So I'll just go and ask my boss for a 100% payraise so i can live closer to work

Stark wrote: »

People in dense population areas are treated to better facilities because they're essentially pooling their tax contributions and benefiting from economies of scale. There's no way someone living in a house on their own in the middle of the country could contribute enough tax to justify the entire infrastructure of a city being provided.

Every taxpayer in the country has contributed to the M50,Luas,Dublin bus etc.. not just those who avail of these services

Stark wrote: »

Public transport? Do you expect them to run empty buses up and down all day long just in case you decide to leave the car at home one day?

Of course I don't thats why I have a car