Motorists face new charges as number of toll roads to double

veryangryman

robbie7730 wrote: »

Persecution complex? I thought you had that thinking im baiting you. I like the way you say the motorway tolls are a good place to start, maybe you have a 5 point plan have you?

Exactly. Taxing the motorist is a very lazy and short-sighted idea.

Im being asked for alternatives to raping the motorist and yet apparently cant go off-topic so im between a rock and a hard place. Sigh...

<Off topic>
Only so many ways to say "default" and "its been done before". Its what will happen anyway. By the way, why does this toll-fan (and indeed the politicians) always back out when people mention real life examples of Argentina and Sweden?
</Off topic>

antoobrien

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Hey fair enough, i admit i didn't realise the numbers involved were as high. Nonetheless it doesn't change the point i've made from my first post in this thread is that things like excise, motor tax and the like aren't for building new roads and that whinges about the Irish motorist having 'more than paid their way' are nonsense.

cork_south wrote: »

But the changes, along with a sharp drop in car sales, have resulted in the Exchequer taking a €650m hit. Figures from the Department of Finance show that, in 2008, the State took in over €1bn on vehicle registration tax charged on new cars. This has fallen to €380m (2010 vrt).
Meanwhile, other motor tax payments amounted to €953m last year, a dip of €30m due to people switching to more efficient vehicles.
Motor tax is paid to local authorities to help run essential services and pay for road improvements. Unless the shortfall is made up, householders can expect to see a cut in services.

I don't believe that my expectation that potholes should be filled in is unexpected, given that we pay more than twice the roads maintenance budget. I also don't think it's unreasonable that important roads links would be paid for with this money (the balance will pay for any one of the Newlands Cross upgrade, N11 Arklow, M17/18 or M20 - pick one).

We've already established that the motorist coughs up about 50% of excise (approx €2.3bn in 2010) and by my estimate at least 5% of all vat (last year €10.1bn).

So to break that down - excise 2.3bn + vat 0.5 bn + motor tax 0.95 bn + vrt 0.38 bn = 4.13bn in 2010. The total tax take in 2010 was 31.05 bn.

The Irish motorist, as well as paying income tax etc is contributing 13% (more than €1 out of every €8) of the total tax take.

That is more than any other sector of the economy except those of us paying income tax (11.53bn). The next biggest was Corporation tax, which last year netted us 10% of our tax take - €3.16b.

invinciblePRSTV

robbie7730 wrote: »

Cop on? To what, that its not after hours here? I remember you using the cop on phrase about the taxes motorists already pay,
As for trying to bait you, a persecution complex is it? You said its likely my fault the way the country is, as i probably voted FF etc, then you say its all our faults anyway as we are all in it together, so i said why mention who i likely voted for if its my fault regardless, you brought up the "who you voted for" rubbish, not me, why mention who i likely voted for if its my fault either way? So cop on yourself before mentioning who i likely voted for, then getting the "bait me" rubbish out when i reply to it.

Persecution complex? I thought you had that thinking im baiting you. I like the way you say the motorway tolls are a good place to start, maybe you have a 5 point plan have you?

I never asked who you voted for, just made a flippant comment in another wise lengthy post relating to the topic at hand. Blather on all you like, you're boring me now.

invinciblePRSTV

antoobrien wrote: »

I don't believe that my expectation that potholes should be filled in is unexpected, given that we pay more than twice the roads maintenance budget. I also don't think it's unreasonable that important roads links would be paid for with this money (the balance will pay for any one of the Newlands Cross upgrade, N11 Arklow, M17/18 or M20 - pick one).

But again you seem to be making a correlation between revenue raised via motors and how it should pay for road related projects. This isn't the case, a point i've been repeatedly making in this thread.

Nonetheless following your train of thought, would you welcome a national tolling scheme if a % of it was ringfenced for potholes and motorway construction?

invinciblePRSTV

veryangryman wrote: »

Exactly. Taxing the motorist is a very lazy and short-sighted idea.

Says who?

veryangryman wrote: »

Im being asked for alternatives to raping the motorist and yet apparently cant go off-topic so im between a rock and a hard place. Sigh...

It's not a well thought out idea though is it? more equivalent to bar room chatter then actual discussion, don't toll motorists but do something about welfare recipients? I've asked you where can the state make up the money that could be got by tolling motorists and you're between a rock and a hard place, do you have a grasp of anything but road related issues from which you could develop an answer to my question beyond 'don't tax the motorist, coz like we've had enough y'know'?

veryangryman wrote: »

<Off topic>
Only so many ways to say "default" and "its been done before". Its what will happen anyway. By the way, why does this toll-fan (and indeed the politicians) always back out when people mention real life examples of Argentina and Sweden?
</Off topic>

You do realise that if the country defaults then it'll be a double whammy of a massive sell-off of state assets to private capital - Potentially like the Mway network - and zero or hugely reduced expenditure on roads maintenance or construction for probably the bones of a decade yeah?

Bruthal

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

I never asked who you voted for, just made a flippant comment in another wise lengthy post relating to the topic at hand. Blather on all you like, you're boring me now.

O sorry about that, but im not here to entertain you. Perhaps if i write a few paragraphs on how to toll every road in the country, you will get all excited. You should get out more really if you suddenly find a poster boring when they dont see your invincible way of thinking.

Bruthal

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

But again you seem to be making a correlation between revenue raised via motors and how it should pay for road related projects. This isn't the case, a point i've been repeatedly making in this thread.

Are you forgetting that the same motorists you are asking to pay more tax for motoring via tolls, are already the same people paying all the other tax hikes already in operation, and more ahead of us. And since you keep on and on about the motor taxes having little to do with roads, then its simply another stealth tax, nothing more.

So realistically, the tolls are just another way of extracting more from the people, in a way that you deem will be acceptable. Motorists are not seperate from paye workers etx, they are the same people, and so its just an extra income tax in reality, just indirectly taken. ,,, am i boring you even more now??

veryangryman

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

You do realise that if the country defaults then it'll be a double whammy of a massive sell-off of state assets to private capital - Potentially like the Mway network - and zero or hugely reduced expenditure on roads maintenance or construction for probably the bones of a decade yeah?

Still not addressing Argentina/Swedish examples where the above has worked. Im waiting ...

invinciblePRSTV

robbie7730 wrote: »

You should get out more really if you suddenly find a poster boring when they dont see your invincible way of thinking.

Ah you've resorted to abuse now, stay classy robbie .

robbie7730 wrote: »

Are you forgetting that the same motorists you are asking to pay more tax for motoring via tolls, are already the same people paying all the other tax hikes already in operation, and more ahead of us. And since you keep on and on about the motor taxes having little to do with roads, then its simply another stealth tax, nothing more.

It;s kind of cute, naive even, the way you seem so outraged at the prospect of additional taxes being levied on citizens. Have you seen the news recently Robbie? the country is in a lil bit of financial trouble. I'm all ears for your suggestions on how the state should plug the deficit.....

robbie7730 wrote: »

....am i boring you even more now??

Not bored, more amused you've started abusing me, tis only the internet young fellow, relax.

veryangryman wrote: »

Still not addressing Argentina/Swedish examples where the above has worked. Im waiting ...

What examples are you referring to VAM? Argentina defaulted and Sweden bailed out its banks, what point are you trying to make exactly? I can't read your mind?

Amtmann

Folks, calling people boring and telling people to "get out more" are both personalised comments that aren't welcome. Please keep it civil.

Bruthal

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Ah you've resorted to abuse now, stay classy robbie .

I thought you said we crib like little girls about motoring taxes, and here you are crying abuse about nothing, that is amusing alright. And stay classy? Laughable that.

You said i was boring you as well, maybe thats abuse.

But let me explain,,,, when i used the word invincible i thought you might see it was a joke,, any idea why? So lighten up there. If you feel your being abused, report it is the usual action.

It;s kind of cute, naive even, the way you seem so outraged at the prospect of additional taxes being levied on citizens. Have you seen the news recently Robbie? the country is in a lil bit of financial trouble. I'm all ears for your suggestions on how the state should plug the deficit.....

Where is the outrage? You dont mind having to pay tolls, others do. So we are all naive while you are the old wise one with all the answers.

Not bored, more amused you've started abusing me, tis only the internet young fellow, relax.

Well most people dont find being abused amusing, so it cant be all that bad really now can it? Nice to know im not boring you anymore though. That didnt last long.

Anyway, settle down, its only the net as you said.

veryangryman

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

What examples are you referring to VAM? Argentina defaulted and Sweden bailed out its banks, what point are you trying to make exactly? I can't read your mind?

Both countries lived to tell the tale. And we can too. That is my point.

My point is that defaulting is not the end of the world. You keep asking where we will find the money to pay these debts. My answer - simple. Dont. Im keeping this reply short - read it again if necessary to hammer the point home.

Few years time, we will be back lending again. The circle of life.

antoobrien

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

But again you seem to be making a correlation between revenue raised via motors and how it should pay for road related projects. This isn't the case, a point i've been repeatedly making in this thread.

You're flat out wrong here's the quote again:

Motor tax is paid to local authorities to help run essential services and pay for road improvements

I'd welcome this money being paid to the NRA and local authorities being paid the money to maintain their road networks. As for local services, much like my [URL=""]proposal[/URL] on road taxes, I very much favour a user pays approach (which if you'd read the thread you might have noticed).

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Nonetheless following your train of thought, would you welcome a national tolling scheme if a % of it was ringfenced for potholes and motorway construction?

To answer your question, no because:
1) under the PPP model the tolls are supposed to go to paying for the roads they are situated on.
2) as we have seen with Waterford this would have the effect of discouraging people form using these roads, negating the utilitiy of the road network.

I am in favour of user pays systems I just don't see this suggestion being practical, as it also must cover the R road network. However I do like the proposal to split the M50 into sections, so that everyone pays a toll, not just those who use the Lucan-Blanchardstown section. I would not mind the motorway system being tolled in that fashion. It could help reduce the hit of the N4 toll for example and take some traffic off the old Kilcock to Enfield Road.

Again I will reiterate I am against tolls on bypasses (and making them M/Way). As we have seen with Waterford, the tolling of this road has defeated the purpose of bypassing Waterford.

invinciblePRSTV

veryangryman wrote: »

Both countries lived to tell the tale. And we can too. That is my point.

My point is that defaulting is not the end of the world. You keep asking where we will find the money to pay these debts. My answer - simple. Dont. Im keeping this reply short - read it again if necessary to hammer the point home.

Few years time, we will be back lending again. The circle of life.

I know you're advocating default, even if Sweden didn't default hence my confusion, it's just that i'm not sure if you're really fully conscious of the consequences of defaulting on our debt.

A few years could be a decade, it could be more it could be less, no one really knows, there's no timetable to these kind of things. And in the mean time it would mean a gutting of state budgets so that expenditure is directed to core areas - health, welfare and education - but spending on non-essential things such as roads maintenace and construction amongst other things would almost certainly be long fingered, that means not reduced or delayed, but gotten rid off completely. You realise this right?

In tandem with that would be a sell off of state assets as directed by the IMF, not in the friendly 'sell what you can' manner which we are currently seeing, but in a sell everything for a song ala Bolivia or Argentina. Would you rather the state or a private operator having control of tolling rights in the national network amongst other assets such as electricity, gas and other formerly owned state infrastructure?

All in all, it seems a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face if you really think the idea of steps being taken by the DoT to introduce new tolls is so unfathomable that you'd rather the state default rather then the poor ol' Irish motorist, which seems to be a stalking horse term for 'the taxpayer', to take. If oyu're angry now VAM, you'll be positively seething in the next few years i'd say:pac:.

clangy

Badabing wrote: »

If the goverment added 5 cent to a litre of petrol would they not make the same amount of money? And less hassle.

antoobrien wrote: »

...use average fuel consumption rates to calculate the amount that should be put into the "road users tax", which will be added to the cost of the petrol. This means that people that use the roads more will pay more...

I would not advocate seeking additional revenue through increased fuel duty. This approach is particularly hard on people in more remote areas with low density settlement patterns where higher per capita mileage is incurred simply to go about everyday life. This travel is often on particularly low standard roads.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Look the motor tax lament of the Irish motorist is a misconception. Motor Tax in Ireland is primarily utilised for local authority funding, not the construction and maintenance of Motorways.

Motor tax should perhaps be viewed as funding for the non-motorway network that is free at point of use.

KevR wrote: »

The money collected from motor tax, fuel duty and VRT is more than enough to cover road spending; there has always been a big surplus which goes to general expenditure.

I do not believe this to be a problem. There are, after all, many externalities to our motoring habits as detailed previously by blacktopper. It would be nigh on impossible to fully determine the full monetary cost of motoring. I therefore think that it is disingenuous to argue that decisions regarding how much to 'tax' the motorist are purely about direct road provision costs.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

No point dilly-dallying, the present national network cost a fortune to build, so let's make some money out of it. So to that end I'm supportive of road-pricing.

I do not think it is unreasonable to pay a toll to use 'premium' stretches of road. We are quite used to paying more for a better standard of service on other forms of transport. Why not roads? Such revenue should be ringfenced for maintaining and extending the premium road network (motorways and offline 2+2's).

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

But instead of such ad hoc tolling measures like the pre-existing tolls and the mooted ones, it would be far more practical to develop an overarching solution covering all charges for use of the main M&N roads so that the "unfairness" in the spread of tolling locations would be eliminated.

I agree, the current situation where some journeys on the excellent motorway network incur a toll, while others do not, seems unfair. I would advocate a closed toll system across the whole premium road network (motorways and offline 2+2's) where motorists obtain a ticket upon entering the system and then pay at a booth on exit (I used such a system in Croatia last summer). Tolls can be broadly based on distance travelled. Such a system would also allow charges to be adjusted to discourage 'local' traffic from using the strategic road network; for example short journeys could cost more per km than longer journeys. This would be a useful traffic management tool.

veryangryman

Why do so many agree with tolling roads that have already been paid for? Christ the M50 has been paid for so many times over (and is STILL tolled).

When i get into my car, i get into the sitting position, not the bending over position.

The average motorist is not a millionaire. We already have more Motorway tolls than our nearest neighbour, meanwhile paying higher insurance (on the way up), motor tax (on the way up) and almost the same for Petrol.

Im sorry but yes the country does need to default. Whatever the consequences of that, at least a rebuild can begin. This will never happen while we are indebted.

Invincible, no the motorist is not "holier than thou" when it comes to price increases but its getting ridiculous at this stage. Im in a decent earner of a job and im feeling the pinch with the wheels - i can only imagine how bad it is for working class families who need a car.

invinciblePRSTV

veryangryman wrote: »

Why do so many agree with tolling roads that have already been paid for? Christ the M50 has been paid for so many times over (and is STILL tolled). .

I don't recall the state ever making the provision that the M50 toll would be removed once paid for?

veryangryman wrote: »

The average motorist is not a millionaire. We already have more Motorway tolls than our nearest neighbour, meanwhile paying higher insurance (on the way up), motor tax (on the way up) and almost the same for Petrol. .

Our nearest neighbour is not the only country with a Motorway network, plenty of out other neightbours have comprehensive tolling systems in place. Btw the UK has progressive tolling in London with the congestion charge, and a sky high toll where it is in place (M6 toll), i take it if you look towards our nearest neighbour for inspiration on roads then you agree with their policies?

veryangryman wrote: »

Im sorry but yes the country does need to default. Whatever the consequences of that, at least a rebuild can begin. This will never happen while we are indebted. .

Oh ok then, the country needs to default now. If you say so shur.

veryangryman wrote: »

Invincible, no the motorist is not "holier than thou" when it comes to price increases but its getting ridiculous at this stage. Im in a decent earner of a job and im feeling the pinch with the wheels - i can only imagine how bad it is for working class families who need a car.

Maybe you need to consider trading down to a car with a more efficient engine? or move closer to your place of work?

Bruthal

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

If you say so shur.

Only your opinions are valid of course:D

Maybe you need to consider trading down to a car with a more efficient engine? or move closer to your place of work?

He does not need to probably, he said he is feeling the pinch, so others with less could have it much worse trying to keep a car going, i am feeling the pinch and many others are worse with their mortgages, maybe we should buy tents?

Anyone struggling with motoring expenses are probably further from their place of work because the houses were cheaper, amazingly enough. But whats 6 or 8 euro a day of tolls, nothing sure. Maybe these people can go into the banks they are propping up, and ask for a remortgage to move closer to their jobs so?

I would say anyone that advocates more expense to the motorists are in positions where it wont affect them much or at all.


Again, hitting motorists for more money is not hitting some isolated untapped community, its the same people that will be hit in every other way that can be thought of anyway. All your thinking of is how to get more money from people to get us out of the mess.

Your not 6 months or a year behind in your mortgage by any chance? Ask the people that are what they think of more expenses. I bet they couldnt care less if ireland defaulted, or went into the abyss.

Rabidlamb

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Where is the proposed extra toll for the M9 going.
As long as it's below Carlow I'm all for it.

mfitzy wrote: »

I would imagine somewhere between Carlow and Kilcullen as to maximise revenues as this is the bursiest section of the new road.

Back on the old N9 so from Castledermot to Kilcullen.
The government need to be aware that it's not like the M50 where you have no alternative, people will just migrate back to the old roads, this has to be factored in to their decision.

namloc1980

veryangryman wrote: »

Why do so many agree with tolling roads that have already been paid for? Christ the M50 has been paid for so many times over (and is STILL tolled).

When i get into my car, i get into the sitting position, not the bending over position.

The average motorist is not a millionaire. We already have more Motorway tolls than our nearest neighbour, meanwhile paying higher insurance (on the way up), motor tax (on the way up) and almost the same for Petrol.

Im sorry but yes the country does need to default. Whatever the consequences of that, at least a rebuild can begin. This will never happen while we are indebted.

Invincible, no the motorist is not "holier than thou" when it comes to price increases but its getting ridiculous at this stage. Im in a decent earner of a job and im feeling the pinch with the wheels - i can only imagine how bad it is for working class families who need a car.

I was in France a few years ago and drove on their motorways (autoroutes) and the cost of the tolls was incredible. You could easily pay €20 or €30 on even a modest drive of say 200km. By comparison our tolls are pretty small.

Captain Commie

Dundalk By-Pass? i'm assuming thats the stretch connecting the M1 with newry? If they toll that then people coming from dublin to the north are going to hit 3 tolls, what a joke!!

ClareVisitor

namloc1980 wrote: »

I was in France a few years ago and drove on their motorways (autoroutes) and the cost of the tolls was incredible. You could easily pay €20 or €30 on even a modest drive of say 200km. By comparison our tolls are pretty small.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't pay road tax do they? So the principle of the user paying applies.

invinciblePRSTV

robbie7730 wrote: »

He does not need to probably, he said he is feeling the pinch, so others with less could have it much worse trying to keep a car going, i am feeling the pinch and many others are worse with their mortgages, maybe we should buy tents?

If he's driving a car with a high litre engine then there is plenty of scope for savings in fuel costs.

robbie7730 wrote: »

Anyone struggling with motoring expenses are probably further from their place of work because the houses were cheaper, amazingly enough. But whats 6 or 8 euro a day of tolls, nothing sure. Maybe these people can go into the banks they are propping up, and ask for a remortgage to move closer to their jobs so?

So we can't have a rational debate on tolling because of some whatiffery on mortgages and the like? If you say so. But let's ignore the narrow parameters you've laid down and talk about hypotheticals; what about mortgage holders who use Motorway X who have to pay tolls whilst Mortgage holders who use Motorway Y don't? my proposal for a tolling system based on a PAYG tolling system seems a lot more fair for all mortgage holders then the status quo you seem intent on defending.

robbie7730 wrote: »

I would say anyone that advocates more expense to the motorists are in positions where it wont affect them much or at all.

Yes this is something you've kept on hinting at throughout your contributions to this thread. If it suits your narrative to suggest that suggestions for an introduction of a national tolling system are made only by people who are either too rich to care or are not motorists at all to make your point then be my guest.

robbie7730 wrote: »

Again, hitting motorists for more money is not hitting some isolated untapped community, its the same people that will be hit in every other way that can be thought of anyway. All your thinking of is how to get more money from people to get us out of the mess.

Sure let's pretend so there is no pressing concern for the state to raise finances and the state doesn't have to consider sweating its assets in order to do so.

robbie7730 wrote: »

Your not 6 months or a year behind in your mortgage by any chance? Ask the people that are what they think of more expenses. I bet they couldnt care less if ireland defaulted, or went into the abyss.

More whatiffery. If we adopt your logic then the state shouldn't do anything to raise any money for fear the poor mortgage holder is going to be hit again. Again you're coming back to playing the let's pretend there is no fiscal crisis game.

Bruthal

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

If he's driving a car with a high litre engine then there is plenty of scope for savings in fuel costs.

Whatiffry i see you said a few times.

So we can't have a rational debate on tolling because of some whatiffery on mortgages and the like? If you say so. But let's ignore the narrow parameters you've laid down and talk about hypotheticals; what about mortgage holders who use Motorway X who have to pay tolls whilst Mortgage holders who use Motorway Y don't? my proposal for a tolling system based on a PAYG tolling system seems a lot more fair for all mortgage holders then the status quo you seem intent on defending.

Im laying down no parameters. Im simply saying how much more can the people of ireland pay to cover the financial problems incurred not by their actions. And as for the rational debate thing, its not a rational debate when the points dont suit you by the look of it.

Yes this is something you've kept on hinting at throughout your contributions to this thread. If it suits your narrative to suggest that suggestions for an introduction of a national tolling system are made only by people who are either too rich to care or are not motorists at all to make your point then be my guest.

The main people who will endorse it are government ministers, the very ones that will never have to worry about the cost to themselves.

Sure let's pretend so there is no pressing concern for the state to raise finances and the state doesn't have to consider sweating its assets in order to do so.

Yes lets pretend none of the states citizens have pressing concerns to pay their living costs and cant meet them.

More whatiffery. If we adopt your logic then the state shouldn't do anything to raise any money for fear the poor mortgage holder is going to be hit again.

You asked if i watch the news in a previous post, as the country is in trouble. Well do you watch it? Because the state has done plenty to raise more money in the last couple of budgets, have you not noticed? No probably not, because your possibly someone that it does not affect as much as it affects others. And yes, unbelievably, the states actions to raise more money has affected very many mortgage holders.

Again you're coming back to playing the let's pretend there is no fiscal crisis game.

Lets pretend there are no people in serious financial difficulty. And lets pretend you are, can you pretend you are, and tell us you would still endorse more expenses on the people.

Of course you would, because (according to you) the country is in financial trouble, its all the citizens own fault, and at all costs, we must bail it out, even if it means people must pay more when they cant pay their living costs as it is. After all, you said the tolls would be the first step you would recommend. So you must have more tax increase methods you would endorse and its not only tolls you would introduce, but that would be your starting place. Therefore i suggest your not in a position where it will affect you to much. But the people who are in difficulty dont matter in your plans, as the state is in trouble and everything else including its citizens are secondary to this.

invinciblePRSTV

robbie7730 wrote: »

Whatiffry i see you said a few times.

That i did. That's what i'll call it when you create hypotheticals, like the poor mortgage holders, for not persuing any new revenue increasing measures.

robbie7730 wrote: »

Im laying down no parameters. Im simply saying how much more can the people of ireland pay to cover the financial problems incurred not by their actions. And as for the rational debate thing, its not a rational debate when the points dont suit you by the look of it.

It's not rational to say that there can't be any more revenue collection methods introduced, ever, by the Government just because a group of people may be in trouble. Not everyone has a mortgage, and not every mortgage holder are in financial difficulties.

robbie7730 wrote: »

The main people who will endorse it are government ministers, the very ones that will never have to worry about the cost to themselves.

Yeah it's easy to moan about the politicians, but doesn't really add to the debate. The politicians are there and always will be. What you going to do about it to change that?

robbie7730 wrote: »

Yes lets pretend none of the states citizens have pressing concerns to pay their living costs and cant meet them.

That's what happens in a recession brought upon by a property bubble imploding. You seen to want to pretend that the state isn't obliged to persue a programme of reducing its costs and increasing its revenues.

robbie7730 wrote: »

You asked if i watch the news in a previous post, as the country is in trouble. Well do you watch it? Because the state has done plenty to raise more money in the last couple of budgets, have you not noticed? No probably not, because your possibly someone that it does not affect as much as it affects others. And yes, unbelievably, the states actions to raise more money has affected very many mortgage holders.

And we're due, in fact agreed and signed up to, via the government austerity programme and the bailout, for at least several more tough budgets. Everyone is feeling the pinch.

robbie7730 wrote: »

Lets pretend there are no people in serious financial difficulty. And lets pretend you are, can you pretend you are, and tell us you would still endorse more expenses on the people.

Let's pretend you're a official in the DoT and you've been asked to increase revenues and cut costs? what you going to do? ignore a relatively simple and quickfire way to make cash with a new tolling system?

robbie7730 wrote: »

Of course you would, because (according to you) the country is in financial trouble, its all the citizens own fault, and at all costs, we must bail it out, even if it means people must pay more when they cant pay their living costs as it is.

I don't know how quite to break the bad news to you robbie.... but the state is in serious financial trouble. And the taxpayer must bail it out. That's the will of the people who elected a new government who've reconfirmed it.

robbie7730 wrote: »

After all, you said the tolls would be the first step you would recommend. So you must have more tax increase methods you would endorse and its not only tolls you would introduce, but that would be your starting place. Therefore i suggest your not in a position where it will affect you to much. But the people who are in difficulty dont matter in your plans, as the state is in trouble and everything else including its citizens are
secondary to this.

So we're back to let's not do anything at all for fear of upsetting people in financial difficulty. If you say so robbie, if you say so....

So what's your solution then Robbie? you're great at saying what can't be done as according to you we can't do anything about anything for fear of upsetting mortgage holders. So how do we solve the fiscal crisis we find ourselves in? Don't bother replying to any of the previous mimicking my choice of words, tell me and everyone here what the DoT and the government should do to deal with the problems at hand, I'm all ears.....

Bruthal

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

So we're back to let's not do anything at all for fear of upsetting people in financial difficulty. If you say so robbie, if you say so....

A familiar, condescending looking post.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Oh ok then, the country needs to default now. If you say so shur.

Must be an automated response there.

So what's your solution then Robbie? you're great at saying what can't be done as according to you we can't do anything about anything for fear of upsetting mortgage holders. So how do we solve the fiscal crisis we find ourselves in? Don't bother replying to any of the previous mimicking my choice of words, tell me and everyone here what the DoT and the government should do to deal with the problems at hand, I'm all ears.....

What was the question again?

wellbutty

namloc1980 wrote: »

I was in France a few years ago and drove on their motorways (autoroutes) and the cost of the tolls was incredible. You could easily pay €20 or €30 on even a modest drive of say 200km. By comparison our tolls are pretty small.

Yeah I did a stretch on their A10 last week, cost me €9 to do 110km, each way. No they don't have motor tax but they have water rates, property taxes and what seems to be taxes on just about everything else.

For a small country like Ireland with a ludicrously generous social welfare system, the revenue must come from somewhere. Yes we all agree motor tax should be ringfenced for roads but the deficit in our country must be made up somehow. I personally have no issue paying €1.80 for an Irish toll.

invinciblePRSTV

robbie7730 wrote: »

What was the question again?

So how do we solve the fiscal crisis we find ourselves in?

More specifically, what can the DoT and the NRA do? any suggestions welcome....

veryangryman

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

More specifically, what can the DoT and the NRA do? any suggestions welcome....

Why do these specifically have to? I hate to sound like a broken record but again...de-fukcing-fault.

invinciblePRSTV

veryangryman wrote: »

Why do these specifically have to? I hate to sound like a broken record but again...de-fukcing-fault.

These can be anything VAM. As suggested by several, increased road-pricing measures appear to be the most logical step that the DoT can do to meet it's new found realities. I'm looking for other suggestions in the roads/ public transport area for increased revenue collection opportunities. I really think a discussion on defaulting is best suited for the politics forum tbh.

Hey Robbie are you there? you've gone awful quite when i asked you a simple question.... still waiting on a reply to my previous post, no more ad hominem or dirges about the poor mortgage holders please in your response....