New Dail / New Taoiseach

Sam Russell

is_that_so wrote: »

I'd be a fan of a list system as the theory is it makes TDs less beholden to parish pump politics.

That is the system that put Farage into the EU Parliament. He was always No. 1 on his parties list.

L1011

The ability to specific vote against a TD while still supporting their party is an essential feature and our system provides it adequately

Break county borders and go back to allowing 9 seat constituencies; it'll make the parish pump basically impossible to maintain and probably make it hard for some of the awful independents who get in on super-local votes.

Bishop of hope

So nobody's totally happy with our pr system?
There's hope for SF after all.

kah22

blanch152 wrote: »

There are other options, including a list system. There are also mixed systems, a combination of say, five-seater constituencies and a list system.

Yes I’ve heard of the list system but I’ve no idea if it’s strengths and weakness

hotmail.com

Up to 1,000 people at the Sinn Fein meeting in Cork tonight.

feargale

hotmail.com wrote: »

Up to 1,000 people at the Sinn Fein meeting in Cork tonight.

That's a big beerhall.

kah22

Here is how the top 7 worked out

Fianna Fáil 37 (FF down one with election of Ceann Comhairle)
Sinn Féin 37
Fine Gael 35
Green Party. 12
Labour Party 6
Social Democrats 6
Solidarity–PBP. 5

So, let’s play a guessing game. Which of those parties would LOOSE most if they went into coalition.

My guess would be the Green Party, certainly if they went into coalition with FF & FG and I think SF would loose big time if they went into government with FF

efanton

kah22 wrote: »

Here is how the top 7 worked out

Fianna Fáil 37 (FF down one with election of Ceann Comhairle)
Sinn Féin 37
Fine Gael 35
Green Party. 12
Labour Party 6
Social Democrats 6
Solidarity–PBP. 5

So, let’s play a guessing game. Which of those parties would LOOSE most if they went into coalition.

My guess would be the Green Party, certainly if they went into coalition with FF & FG and I think SF would loose big time if they went into government with FF

Would the Green party really care?
Their agenda is to get green policies enacted.

Their game plan at the moment is probably to see which coalition will enact as many green policies as possible and probably be sure to jump on ship to which ever collation finally makes it to government. Getting their policies enacted is more important to them that being in government, after all they are hardly likely to ever be in the situation where they will be a senior member of any coalition. If they can get thier changes now they will probably take that opportunity knowing that it might result in them not having a hope of being in a subsequent government.

The thing I dont get is why they are even considering supporting FG?
FG policy is to tax carbon, with the belief that it will change consumer habits.
But when there are very few alternatives this will not happen at all.
They are not actually tackling climate change head on, instead preferring to let market forces sort it out. The market has no interest in sorting it out while there is profit to be made and very few penalties for continuing as is.

Public transport is running at or near capacity where it is available, but for the majority of the country public transport simply does not exist.
I'm sure every family would love to be drive a new electric car, but how many can actually afford such a luxury? The cost of fully insulating old houses is beyond what most families can afford. Yes there are grants but they only cover a fraction of the cost, leaving most families paying more taxation with no actual benefit to the environment.

All that will be achieved is the tax man collecting a whole lot more revenue, while Ireland still continues with an economic model that is not very environmentally friendly.



My personal opinion is that all fuels and non recyclables must be fully taxed at source and that motor tax be abolished and instead transferred to the cost of fuel. Those that use private and commercial vehicles that use fossil fuels most would pay more, those that pollute most would pay most.

If one supermarket has to pay upfront the taxes on a products packaging that is not recyclable and incurs more environmental taxes before it is put on the shelf and another super market insists that all it product are packaged with recyclable materials guess who is going to win the business and have the lower overheads? At the moment retailers don't care because the total cost of environmental taxes is paid by consumers and it doesn't affect their business overheads.
Unfortunately no party is advocating such a policy.



So its hard to see how the Greens would in anyway achieve their goals joining a FF/FG/Green coalition unless FG/FF were to do dramatic U-Turns on their environmental policies.

SF have taken a different view in that they do not believe taxing carbon has any real environmental effect.
They wish to take on an approach where they will use incentives so that business, government bodies and the electorate will adopt more environmentally friendly spending, use of resources, and changes to existing practices. It all sound very good in practice but its thin on concrete detail.

They did release this report last year. For the most part it show they have the right ideas but again it has not translated into solid policies.
https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2019/Climate_Minority_Report1.pdf

Water John

Efanton all the three FF, FG and the Greens agree on a carbon tax.

efanton

Water John wrote: »

Efanton all the three FF, FG and the Greens agree on a carbon tax.

And what will that achieve?

Will that improve the environment in any way at all?

Have FF and FG committed themselves to ring-fencing any carbon tax collected for environmental purposes?
They have been quite happy to spend it on anything but the environment up until now.

FrancieBrady

Water John wrote: »

Efanton all the three FF, FG and the Greens agree on a carbon tax.

Will be good to see them trying to roll that one out.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Will be good to see them trying to roll that one out.

Fn greens, nearly make me vote for SF if it would keep them out.
But then SF would take them on too if it meant power.

blanch152

efanton wrote: »

And what will that achieve?

Will that improve the environment in any way at all?

Have FF and FG committed themselves to ring-fencing any carbon tax collected for environmental purposes?
They have been quite happy to spend it on anything but the environment up until now.

Taxes change behaviours.

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/2943922/feldstein_fx%20of%20taxes.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

https://igees.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Behavioural-Economics-and-Tax.pdf


"At a minimum, the carbon tax can be considered to be the purest corrective tax in the Irish tax system. "


https://www.esri.ie/system/files/publications/QEC2019SUM_SA_Lynch.pdf

"This work examined the impact of increased carbon taxation in Ireland, and
quantified the impact of same on carbon emissions using Irish microlevel data for the first time. Our results find a 3.94 per cent reduction in carbon emissions if carbon taxes are increased by €30 per tonne, and an 10.24 per cent reduction in emissions if taxes are increased by €80 per tonne. The evidence suggests that carbon taxation is a valid and important part of climate policy"

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Will be good to see them trying to roll that one out.

Those who oppose carbon taxes are those who oppose dealing with climate change.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Those who oppose carbon taxes are those who oppose dealing with climate change.

I don't oppose either carbon taxes or water charges.

I do oppose the way water charges were rolled out here though, and I merely wondered would FG/FF/Gr's make the colossal mess of rolling out Carbon Taxes that FG made of WT's

What do you think?

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Those who oppose carbon taxes are those who oppose dealing with climate change.

not true.
Actually doing something practical might help, lazy charging more taxes does not help.

efanton

blanch152 wrote: »

Taxes change behaviours.

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/2943922/feldstein_fx%20of%20taxes.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

https://igees.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Behavioural-Economics-and-Tax.pdf


"At a minimum, the carbon tax can be considered to be the purest corrective tax in the Irish tax system. "


https://www.esri.ie/system/files/publications/QEC2019SUM_SA_Lynch.pdf

"This work examined the impact of increased carbon taxation in Ireland, and
quantified the impact of same on carbon emissions using Irish microlevel data for the first time. Our results find a 3.94 per cent reduction in carbon emissions if carbon taxes are increased by €30 per tonne, and an 10.24 per cent reduction in emissions if taxes are increased by €80 per tonne. The evidence suggests that carbon taxation is a valid and important part of climate policy"

I have no doubt that carbon taxes would change behaviour if there was an alternative.

What is the alternative to a car if you live in a rural area?
Buy anew electric car? most families could only dream of doing so.
So the result will be more taxes collected, but no positive impact on the environment.

The only way that taxation is going to have a real and significant benefit is to front load all carbon taxes and scrap the motor tax and transfer the loss in revenue to fuel prices.

Those that pollute most would pay most, and that would have the desired effect. Companies would find more efficient ways of transporting their goods.
Ordinary people if they could not afford electric cars wouldnt be driving around in 2 litre Passat's or huge SUV's they would instead be driving cars with smaller engines.

If environmental taxes were front loaded in the retail sector you can bet your life that retailers would insist their supplier only use recyclable packaging.

At the moment businesses have no real incentive to go green. Any costs are simply passed on to the consumer. Turn that around where they pay all environmental taxes up front and then pass those costs on to the consumer and it will hit their operating costs. Very quickly we would see dramatic changes in packaging, the way good are transported, and how good are made.

I'm not defending any party's policies. SF dont have any solid policies as far as I can see and the rest are just paying lip service.

To be fair to FG and FF at least they have made a stab at costing some of their environmental policies.

The Greens policy on the other hand is a joke. Not one single measure in their entire manifesto has been costed.
https://www.greenparty.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/GREEN_PARTY_TOWARDS_2030-WEB-VERSION.pdf

The Green manifesto is just one huge wishlist, uncosted, and worse than that for the most part totally unworkable. What they want to do in one decade would take any country decades to achieve. and even then most couldnt afford it.

In the mean time The Greens will run between parties hoping that some party will bite, the more desperate they are for the Green seats, the higher the cost will be.

Scoundrel

blanch152 wrote: »

Those who oppose carbon taxes are those who oppose dealing with climate change.

Tax the little people that's your solution to everything blueshirts on bikes is all the greens are.

Water John

EVs are great in rural Ireland. Unless you want a tow hitch and very few do.
With specific farming methods I would be able to sequester over 4 tonnes on CO2 per acre per year. If you want to pay me €30 or better still €80 per tonne, I'll be delighted with a low carbon economy.
To go towards carbon neutral will be a personal choice. The only two items a Govn't has to persuade you are the two old reliables, the carrot and the stick.

Sam Russell

efanton wrote: »

I have no doubt that carbon taxes would change behaviour if there was an alternative.

What is the alternative to a car if you live in a rural area?
Buy anew electric car? most families could only dream of doing so.
So the result will be more taxes collected, but no positive impact on the environment.

The only way that taxation is going to have a real and significant benefit is to front load all carbon taxes and scrap the motor tax and transfer the loss in revenue to fuel prices.

Those that pollute most would pay most, and that would have the desired effect. Companies would find more efficient ways of transporting their goods.
Ordinary people if they could not afford electric cars wouldnt be driving around in 2 litre Passat's or huge SUV's they would instead be driving cars with smaller engines.

If environmental taxes were front loaded in the retail sector you can bet your life that retailers would insist their supplier only use recyclable packaging.

At the moment businesses have no real incentive to go green. Any costs are simply passed on to the consumer. Turn that around where they pay all environmental taxes up front and then pass those costs on to the consumer and it will hit their operating costs. Very quickly we would see dramatic changes in packaging, the way good are transported, and how good are made.

I'm not defending any party's policies. SF dont have any solid policies as far as I can see and the rest are just paying lip service.

To be fair to FG and FF at least they have made a stab at costing some of their environmental policies.

The Greens policy on the other hand is a joke. Not one single measure in their entire manifesto has been costed.
https://www.greenparty.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/GREEN_PARTY_TOWARDS_2030-WEB-VERSION.pdf

The Green manifesto is just one huge wishlist, uncosted, and worse than that for the most part totally unworkable. What they want to do in one decade would take any country decades to achieve. and even then most couldnt afford it.

In the mean time The Greens will run between parties hoping that some party will bite, the more desperate they are for the Green seats, the higher the cost will be.

If a tax is put on something, or taken off, it will change behaviour. When motor tax was reduced to make diesel cars cheaper to tax, the proportion of diesels sold went to about 90% despite the fact that for low mileage use they were unsuitable.

If it were possible to implement the GP policy of low CO2 emissions, low nitrate use in farming, better insulation of houses and other premises, it would make costs much lower for most people. A house can be insulated so that heating cost is close the zero. However, it requires substantial investment to achieve that, and to retrofit is hugely more expensive that insulting a new build.

The GP are attacked because their message is more complicated than a three word slogan.

For example, trying to change beef production requires significant change to the current method, and is severely affected by the rush of dairy producers to increase herd numbers. Dairy producers produce calves that, if male, have almost no value since they are unsuitable for the suckler farmer. That will require changes by the dairy farmer to help the suckler farmer make the beef production profitable. Who is calling for that?

The grass production system using rye grass needs changing because rye grass works well with high use of nitrate fertiliser, but has a shallow root penetration. This makes for poor results during drought conditions, and poor recovery following flooding. Reseeding with mixed variety sward seed to give a much deeper rooting would reduce and perhaps eliminate the need for fertiliser altogether - so reducing a huge cost to the farmer.

Why do so few farmers grow their own potatoes and vegetables? There was a time not so long ago when all farmers had a 'garden' that grew their requirement for potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, onions, cabbage, etc. They would also keep chickens for the pot and for eggs, and some kept a few pigs as well. Of course that was before the Single Farm Payment.

Why is it so hard to get public transport initiatives into practice? Galway is looking to build a motorway bypass, rather than put in a decent public transport system No buses go across the Quincentennial bridge connecting the west side of the city to the east side. Why is that? The bridge was built nearly forty years ago. Could they not try a few routes and see what happens?

It is this kind of detail changes that are needed throughout the economy, and that cannot be achieved in a week, or a year, or even a decade. It need to become second nature that care for the planet comes before economic growth.

Green policies not only might save the planet, they might actually make our lives better.

[By the way, I am not a GP member].

efanton

Sam Russell wrote: »

If a tax is put on something, or taken off, it will change behaviour. When motor tax was reduced to make diesel cars cheaper to tax, the proportion of diesels sold went to about 90% despite the fact that for low mileage use they were unsuitable.

If it were possible to implement the GP policy of low CO2 emissions, low nitrate use in farming, better insulation of houses and other premises, it would make costs much lower for most people. A house can be insulated so that heating cost is close the zero. However, it requires substantial investment to achieve that, and to retrofit is hugely more expensive that insulting a new build.

The GP are attacked because their message is more complicated than a three word slogan.

For example, trying to change beef production requires significant change to the current method, and is severely affected by the rush of dairy producers to increase herd numbers. Dairy producers produce calves that, if male, have almost no value since they are unsuitable for the suckler farmer. That will require changes by the dairy farmer to help the suckler farmer make the beef production profitable. Who is calling for that?

The grass production system using rye grass needs changing because rye grass works well with high use of nitrate fertiliser, but has a shallow root penetration. This makes for poor results during drought conditions, and poor recovery following flooding. Reseeding with mixed variety sward seed to give a much deeper rooting would reduce and perhaps eliminate the need for fertiliser altogether - so reducing a huge cost to the farmer.

Why do so few farmers grow their own potatoes and vegetables? There was a time not so long ago when all farmers had a 'garden' that grew their requirement for potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, onions, cabbage, etc. They would also keep chickens for the pot and for eggs, and some kept a few pigs as well. Of course that was before the Single Farm Payment.

Why is it so hard to get public transport initiatives into practice? Galway is looking to build a motorway bypass, rather than put in a decent public transport system No buses go across the Quincentennial bridge connecting the west side of the city to the east side. Why is that? The bridge was built nearly forty years ago. Could they not try a few routes and see what happens?

It is this kind of detail changes that are needed throughout the economy, and that cannot be achieved in a week, or a year, or even a decade. It need to become second nature that care for the planet comes before economic growth.

Green policies not only might save the planet, they might actually make our lives better.

[By the way, I am not a GP member].

I agree with everything you have said, lots of changes do need to take place.
We have lots of government that are only too happy to collect carbon taxes, but I bet if you asked them where all that money went it certainly would not be on environmental initiatives. Thats why I am against them personally, in the form that they are in.

As long as they are paid by the consumer, there will be no real change, and the money collected will never go to providing extra public transport, toward the agricultural community in the form of grants so that they can change farming practices or provide substantial grants so that the those that own exiting homes that need re-insulating can afford to do so.
What is the point of a carbon tax if people can't afford an alternative or have no access to an alternative.

Like I have said, carbon taxes at the consumer level are the worst possible way of getting the change that needs to happen to happen quick. Better to put those taxes at source so that retailers and companies see it affecting there operating costs and make changes to avoid these costs where possible. They will pass on the taxes to the consumer anyhow so it will not affect their profit margin, but they will have a huge incentive to reduce their operating costs by using recyclable packaging , using more environment materials in the manufacturing process, or reducing their cost in transport


.

charlie14

efanton wrote: »

I agree with everything you have said, lots of changes do need to take place.
We have lots of government that are only too happy to collect carbon taxes, but I bet if you asked them where all that money went it certainly would not be on environmental initiatives. Thats why I am against them personally, in the form that they are in.

As long as they are paid by the consumer, there will be no real change, and the money collected will never go to providing extra public transport, toward the agricultural community in the form of grants so that they can change farming practices or provide substantial grants so that the those that own exiting homes that need re-insulating can afford to do so.
What is the point of a carbon tax if people can't afford an alternative or have no access to an alternative.

Like I have said, carbon taxes at the consumer level are the worst possible way of getting the change that needs to happen to happen quick. Better to put those taxes at source so that retailers and companies see it affecting there operating costs and make changes to avoid these costs where possible. They will pass on the taxes to the consumer anyhow so it will not affect their profit margin, but they will have a huge incentive to reduce their operating costs by using recyclable packaging , using more environment materials in the manufacturing process, or reducing their cost in transport


.

You can put whatever levies you like on on companies and retailers, at the end of the day it will still be the end user that pays.
Simplest solution is to ring-fence carbon tax for use only in specified areas.

efanton

charlie14 wrote: »

You can put whatever levies you like on on companies and retailers, at the end of the day it will still be the end user that pays.
Simplest solution is to ring-fence carbon tax for use only in specified areas.

I think you missed my point.
Yes the consumer will end up paying any taxes retailers incur, but if the retailer has to pay those taxes upfront before putting goods on their shelves it will hit their operating costs.

Think of it from a retailers point of view he has a choice of two products from two suppliers, one has recyclable packaging the other doesn't. He is going to have to spend more of his operating capital on one because it incurs a levy and less on the other that doesn't incur a levy but still end up making the same profit which ever he chooses. Which one will the retailer choose?

Scoundrel

Green policies on public transport are indeed quite sensible and we need proper investment from Government in public transport not the creeping privatisation that we have seen or has been mooted we'll end up in a fiasco like the UK's hideous privatised train network but the proposed carbon tax is simply another tax on hard working low earning people.

charlie14

efanton wrote: »

I think you missed my point.
Yes the consumer will end up paying any taxes retailers incur, but if the retailer has to pay those taxes upfront before putting goods on their shelves it will hit their operating costs.

Think of it from a retailers point of view he has a choice of two products from two suppliers, one has recyclable packaging the other doesn't. He is going to have to spend more of his operating capital on one because it incurs a levy and less on the other that doesn't incur a levy but still end up making the same profit which ever he chooses. Which one will the retailer choose?

There would be no difference than how VAT works.
It is charged all the way down the chain from manufacturer to the end consumer who is the only one that actually pays it where all the others can claim it back.
Same as VAT by charging carbon tax all through the consumer chain the end user would be paying plus the extra added by every other link for cost of administration.
At the end of the day, similar to VAT, it would be cheaper for the consumer to pay carbon tax to the final link in the chain.

efanton

charlie14 wrote: »

There would be no difference than how VAT works.
It is charged all the way down the chain from manufacturer to the end consumer who is the only one that actually pays it where all the others can claim it back.
Same as VAT by charging carbon tax all through the consumer chain the end user would be paying plus the extra added by every other link for cost of administration.
At the end of the day, similar to VAT, it would be cheaper for the consumer to pay carbon tax to the final link in the chain.

Who said anything about VAT.

Let me make it simple for you.
A wholesaler buy 10,000 packets of of what ever from a supplier.
He is offered one product that has recyclable packaging that does not incur a levy.
He is offered another product that does not have recyclable packaging. Because of this he now has to pay the green levy immediately if he chooses this product.
He sells it on to a retailer, and recoups his costs plus the cost of the levy, who then sell it to a consumer who pays for the levy included in the price.

The wholesaler now suddenly has to use a whole lot more of his operating capital if he wishes to buy the product that doesn't use recyclable packaging.
He simply is not going to do that, He will either buy the product that incurs no levy, or he will insist the other supplier switches to packaging that incurs no levy.

Problem solved. You the consumer are now buying a more environmentally friendly product and are likely to only see products with environmentally friendly packaging on the shelves. No one pays an environmental levy because all packaging is now more environmentally friendly.
Its a win/win situation.

Bishop of hope

efanton wrote: »

Who said anything about VAT.

Let me make it simple for you.
A wholesaler buy 10,000 packets of of what ever from a supplier.
He is offered one product that has recyclable packaging that does not incur a levy.
He is offered another product that does not have recyclable packaging. Because of this he now has to pay the green levy immediately if he chooses this product.
He sells it on to a retailer, and recoups his costs plus the cost of the levy, who then sell it to a consumer who pay for the levy included in the price.

The wholesaler now suddenly has to use a whole lot more of his operating capital if he wishes to buy the product that doesn't use recyclable packaging.
He simply is not going to do that, He will either buy the product that incurs no levy, or he will insist the other supplier switches to packaging that incurs no levy.

Problem solved. You the consumer are now buying a more environmentally friendly product and are likely to only see products with environmentally friendly packaging on the shelves. No one pays a environmental levy because all packaging is now more environmentally friendly.
Its a win/win situation.

Why would this not already be the case?
Would it not be because of the price of the packaging in the first place?
I/we, shop for two most weeks, we buy mostly fresh products, with no packaging, but it's more expensive than packaged goods, so I for one don't get your point whatsoever.

blanch152

efanton wrote: »

I think you missed my point.
Yes the consumer will end up paying any taxes retailers incur, but if the retailer has to pay those taxes upfront before putting goods on their shelves it will hit their operating costs.

Think of it from a retailers point of view he has a choice of two products from two suppliers, one has recyclable packaging the other doesn't. He is going to have to spend more of his operating capital on one because it incurs a levy and less on the other that doesn't incur a levy but still end up making the same profit which ever he chooses. Which one will the retailer choose?

Not really, it just increases the amount of working capital the retailer requires.

efanton

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Why would this not already be the case?
Would it not be because of the price of the packaging in the first place?
I/we, shop for two most weeks, we buy mostly fresh products, with no packaging, but it's more expensive than packaged goods, so I for one don't get your point whatsoever.

THat is not how it works and its pure lunacy.

At the moment levy is only applied when the consumer buys the product as I understand it and has been explained to me.

This is why carbon taxes or green taxes dont work as well as they should.
If a retailer can just simply whack on the cost of a levy to a consumer without being first hit by it themselves why would they even bother to change anything to be more environmentally friendly?


If the retailers or wholesalers were hit with this additional operating cost of the levy you can be damn sure that manufactures would quickly be told to change their practices.

efanton

blanch152 wrote: »

Not really, it just increases the amount of working capital the retailer requires.

so are you suggesting that retailer faced with this additional overhead would not insist their supplier change their practices, or seek a different supplier so that they would no have this additional overhead?