Labour Party Do Not Call for Abolition of Bin Tax

by Martin Mon May 24, 2004 13:47

They voted for the charges in a lot of places. They never supported the non-payment campaign.

Now that Fianna Fail have done the dirty work of getting them in the last thing they want to be doing is committing themselves to abolishing the charges.

by Socialist Mon May 24, 2004 13:57

There is a good chance that Lab/SF in the Dublin city council could be returned with a majority of councillors. Should be funny to watch them doing political gymnastics when they are in this position and implement the pay per weight law.

by observer Mon May 24, 2004 14:35

Will be even funnier to watch the shocked expression on the faces of the SP candidates in the City Council area when the boxes are opened on June 12 :))))

by Pedant Mon May 24, 2004 14:40

What do you mean candidates? Shouldn't that be candidate!!

by me Mon May 24, 2004 16:06

Isn’t it time we have to take responsibility for our waste? Any way I am culchie and we have been paying for it for years.

by Jonno - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Mon May 24, 2004 16:21

The bin tax has nothing at all to do with residents taking responsibility for their own waste. You seem to be confusing "an extra tax hitting low income families the hardest" with "launching proper recycling schemes".

Fact 1: The bin tax money is not being spent on creating a real recycling infrastructure. Our beloved government allowed the only glass recycling plant in the country to close.

Fact 2: The overwhelming majority of landfill waste comes from business, construction, retail and so on. Residential waste is only a tiny part of the problem, but the bin tax is a way of making ordinary punters pay for business pollution.

Fact 3: The bin tax is an essential part of the process of privatising local services.

Just wait until a few months after the local elections and there will be some intersting rumblings about the launch of a new water tax. All part of the same imposition of a new tier of local taxation on PAYE workers.

by Jim Mon May 24, 2004 16:34

Even the SVP are more radical than the Labour Party. They understand the hardship that the tax has on families of low incomes. The Labour Party is a disgrace!! Have they changed their slogan to 'the working class can kiss my arse' yet?

by :-) Mon May 24, 2004 16:45

the working class can kiss my ass if either their eyes are shut or mine are.

by Bob Mon May 24, 2004 17:03

> Fact 2: The overwhelming majority of landfill waste comes from business, construction, retail and so on. Residential waste is only a tiny part of the problem, but the bin tax is a way of making ordinary punters pay for business pollution.

Just because someone else is polluting more than you are doesn't mean you shouldn't pay. EVERYONE should pay in proportion to the pollution they are causing.

> Fact 3: The bin tax is an essential part of the process of privatising local services.

How?

by hs - sp Mon May 24, 2004 17:12

you can't privatise something that doesn't have a charge.

by Jonno Mon May 24, 2004 17:14

The bin tax sets up a secure income stream for any private operator, something which makes the package much more attractive to the profiteers. That isn't just a theoretical proposition, we have countless examples around the country already. In a huge number of local authority areas a bin tax has been swiftly followed by privatisation, with most of the remaining Councils just biding their time.

As for everyone paying - we all already pay for our services through income tax. An attempt to introduce a second tier of local taxation, which is not staggered according to income, is nothing less than a move to shift the burden of taxation even further onto PAYE workers and away from the business elite.

You will note, that the government did not decide to go after the business interests who create most of the waste to pay their share. Instead, as usual, they went after working class people to pay even more.

by bugs bunny Mon May 24, 2004 17:24

or eventhe PD'S instead of posing as 'socialists' in the upcoming elections
It was reported in yesterday's media that Rabbitt sends his Child to a private school! So much for public education for da workers!
This is hypocritical even by labour standards
As for Trinity's and RTE's favourite Yuppie Batchic, she finally came clean on Morning Ireland and appealed for the Liberal voters who previously voted for FG candidate Mary Banotti to now vote for her! The real question is why Liberals such as Batchic and Rabitte dont Join FG?

by Bob Mon May 24, 2004 17:33

I'll have to take your word on privatisation of rubbish collection around the country - I haven't heard of it but its not like I'm keeping a close eye.

Hypothetical on the double taxation argument, if you could pay a little less income tax, would you favor the bin tax?

That is, if you were not taxed twice and everyone (businesses included) payed what they polluted, would that make it okay?

by Jonno Mon May 24, 2004 18:16

It would make the tax less awful, but it still wouldn't make it good.

1) The privatisation factor would still apply.

2) Income tax is an inherently fairer way to pay for services than flat rate taxes or charges. That the rich should pay more tax is a principle that is currently under attack through the imposition of charges and stealth taxes all of which have the effect of shifting the burden of taxation even more onto PAYE workers.

by CB Mon May 24, 2004 20:02

The Labour Councillors who voted for the bin tax where treatened with disciplinary action from their party. These smae councillors are still standing as official Labour candidates. Disgrace!

by Sallynoggin Tue May 25, 2004 01:13

The Labour Party are a disgrace. They support the bin tax. In my area their candidatye called to my door and told me he wanted the tax abolished after I had said I was against it, then when I read his glossy leaflet it said he wanted the tax to remain but to be 'fairer' with more waivers, tags and 'pay by weight'. What a liar! He is no different to the FFers who lie to your face.
Don't get hoodwinked into thinking this crowd are the 'lesser of two evils'. All they want is enough councillors so they can share power and perks with FF and/or FG.

Don't vote Labour and dont transfer to them!

by Insider Tue May 25, 2004 09:36

With the bin tax waived for 44,000 households in Dublin City how is the service being " fattened " for privatisation. What operator would take on that many freebies? The unions representing the workers know that the best way to preserve jobs is to see the charge being paid. Worst case scenario is the City Manager deciding that the service isn't worth the hassle and then deciding to outsource it. For the record , the power to charge for a service was introduced by a labour minister, Dick Spring, and the application of thre polluter pays principle was introduced by Brendan Howlin. SF councillors in the city have no difficulty paying the charge or availing of the waiver scheme.

by Non-Payer Tue May 25, 2004 10:03

Any number of waivers haven't dissuaded private operators from taking over the service once the bin tax has been accepted in a huge number of local authorities around the country. In fact, in many cases the private operators simply stopped allowing as many people to claim waivers.

The unions representing the bin workers have been disgustingly complacent about the long term threat to their own member's livelihoods that privatisation represents. The bureaucrats of SIPTU and Mandate have done everything they can to avoid a fight, hoping that their members won't draw the obvious conclusions from what has happened across much of the rest of the state.

As for "the polluter pays principle", there is no such thing. And won't be until business is paying for the overwhelming majority of landfill waste. Something that will happen under this government or a Fine Gael/Labour one on around the same day that Satan starts throwing snowballs in hell.

by Milk Bottle Tue May 25, 2004 11:49

Anybody peddling the fiction that the bin tax will protect jobs is spreading shite. Look at how the bin tax was implemented in Sligo (as a test run for Dublin) .

After a long campaign, Sligo council finally (with the support of Sinn Fein) defeated a militant non-payment campaign. The service was totally withdrawn initially from areas of strong opposition and tags introduced to undermine the campaign. To cut a long story short, Sligo is suffering the highest bin tax rates in the country (€500+) which are all going to the coffers of a private company.

The story doesn't end in Sligo, the same company commenced operations in Roscommon under a different name. For the first year the service was free of charge to ingratiate with the locals, the year after extortionate charges, and the tag-a-bags scheme (to exploit the very poorest) introduced.

As for waivers, one guess what happened to them.

The slime are lying low on the bin-tax for the moment, but if they sleaze their way back into majority power on the council we are guaranteed a new bin privatisation offensive this coming Autumn.

by Tim Tue May 25, 2004 12:14

Jonno and the Sp criticise the Labour Party and a lot of it is justified but what real alternative do they offer. There is nothing revolutionary about the Sp manifesto. It is basically a Left Social Democratic Reformist Document.

There is no call for Revolution, no demand for the smashing of the Capitalist State. No demand for the abolition of the Gardai. No mention of nationaloising the banks. Instead of calling for the exppropriatiopn of all building land the SP timidly call for it to be bought at agricultural prices.

This is not the programme of a Revolutionary Party. All that they propose can be acheived under capitalism .

by Ultra left mentalist Tue May 25, 2004 12:22

In fact the SP does call for the nationalisation of the banks and the other major monopolies under workers control. In a rare example of humour from them they then add "compensation to be payable on the basis of proven need".

There are plenty of good reasons to attack the SP, but there is no reason to make stuff up. As for the rest of your stuff, are you trying to convince us that the SP are NOT ultra-left mentalists?

by SP member Tue May 25, 2004 12:23

Unlike some on the revolutionary left we don't use slogans of "smash the state", or "abolish the coppers". This is because we relate to where the working class are at. We do call for the nationalisation of the banks, we do say that the economy should be under the control of the working class. Is this not revolutionary? Tim, the Socialist Party is not the SWP or the Sparts. We relate to real life and make revolutionary demands in a way that is accessable to people.

by Tim Tue May 25, 2004 12:24

If they believe this then why dont they put it in their manifesto? The SP are basically a reformist party.

by Bemused Tue May 25, 2004 12:26

What a mad thread but that said this interested me.

"we do say that the economy should be under the control of the working class. Is this not revolutionary? "

The SSP also say this but you don't think its revolutionary enough!

by SP member Tue May 25, 2004 12:34

*Run public companies and services democratically through governing bodies that are elected not appointed
* Democratic public ownership of the banks, financial institutions and the key sectors of the economy
*A democratic socialist plan of the economy to cater for the needs of society - putting people before profit
* No to the big business dominated EU - for a Socialist Europe


These are extracts from the manifesto. This is Revolutionary. Democratic control and ownership of the economy is socialism! Tim, stop trolling!

by Tim Tue May 25, 2004 12:38

No mention of revolution or smashing the state. Do the SP now believe that revolution is unnecessary and that capitalists will meekly just hand over the means of power? How would the SP deal with the army and gardai, do they not think that these forces would be used to smash any attempt at formig a real workers government?

by UltraLeft mentalist Tue May 25, 2004 12:48

Neither are there any mentions of the need for armed workers militas or the need for the heads of Bertie Ahern and Mary Harney to be put on pikes!

Has one of the Sparts forgotten to take his tablets this morning?

by Real Ultra Left Tue May 25, 2004 12:52

Go to the Socialist Youth discussion site if you want to hear that stuff. They will tell you how they are going to smash the state and all of the bosses parties! They even support the banning of strikes by "Workers" Governments and the shooting of hostages by the bolsheviks under Lenin and Trotsky.

by Sir Dr AJF Tue May 25, 2004 16:04

Just found this buried in an Irish Independent article today.

"The Socialist Workers' Party has two outgoing County Councillors, Ruth Coppinger and Clare Daly, who are hoping to retain their seats on Fingal County Council and the SWP is fielding a total of 14 candidates. "

Jumped ship have they?

by Mick Smurfitt Tue May 25, 2004 16:11

You have scuppered the bounders game! Well after Joan Collins was deselected its hardly surprising that some of the others would also take to the lifeboats.

I hear the SP are increasingly fragmented. They have now lost 2 National Committee members as well as Dermot Connolly. Another long term member, Michael Gallagher has also left and is standing as an independent.

by facts Tue May 25, 2004 18:09

"I hear the SP are increasingly fragmented. They have now lost 2 National Committee members as well as Dermot Connolly."

False. who are these 2 national committee members? News to me, Joan is one I presume, and who else?!

"Another long term member, Michael Gallagher has also left and is standing as an independent."

Michael Gallagher only left because his local branch would not nominate him to be a candidate. I don't think that kinda opportunism should be tolerated in any organisation.

by Amused Tue May 25, 2004 18:17

Stop making yourselves sound so big.
Now let's see - that local branch, would that be the one for the whole of Dublin city?

by MS Tue May 25, 2004 18:34

The other NC member was Mary Muldony. Its really sickening the way you are so quick to slander Mick Gallagher. What local branch are you talking about? The Dublin City Branch?

by Chris Bond Wed May 26, 2004 01:00 chrisbonn_irl_2000 at hotmail dot com

im a supporter of the labour party and i believe that their stance is correct from both an environmental and economic point of view. Labour want to keep the waste disposal a national service. waivers will be granted to all but those who are on a comfortable income. The pay by weight system will work out cheeper than having to pay a set fee or having to pay it via the standard taxation system the money used will be invested in recycling reducing the need for an incinerator thus not allowing private companies to profit from waste. it will reduce the amount of waste this is a major contrast to the ideologies of FF/PD who wish to create more waste so that their friends in big business can make a profit out of it.

by Alan - None Wed May 26, 2004 11:42

Forget all that - what about Joan Collins? Last week she was running on an anti-bin tax platform. Now she's backing UKIP to pull the UK out of the EU.

Terrible opportunism, I think .... ;-)

by SPuppywatch Wed May 26, 2004 11:53

Now as the spuppie well knows Joan Collins is running on an anti bin tax, anti cuts, pro worker platform. Its really sick the way the SP will do anything to destroy their former comrades. They would rather see a bosses candidate elected than see Joan Collins get a seat.

by sp'er - but not really Wed May 26, 2004 12:02

Seen Joan Collins posters on the way into work, boy has she let herself go since she was in Dynasty!

by Alan Wed May 26, 2004 12:12

I see poor ol' "SPuppywatch" seems to have drank too much fizzy pop and thinks I'm an SP member trying to smear Joan.

For the 0.1% of you who didn't get the allusion, follow this link (and *NO*, it's not the same Joan Collins....)

http://www.itv.com/news/1528797.html

by SPuppywatch Wed May 26, 2004 12:30

I admit I had a litre of club orange and a bar of choclate last night. That got me het up. Its just that your comment looked just like the type of dirt the SP will always throw at their ex comrades.

Perhaps the SP would come clean and tell us if they will be calling for a vote for Joan Collins and Michael Gallagher in the elections.

by Patrick Wed May 26, 2004 14:41

Kevin Humphrey's the leader of Labour on the Dublin CIty Council has called for more gardaí on the streets.
The Labour Party has said at the launch of their Dublin local election manifesto today that crime is a big issue. He told jounalists of how local communities are harrassed by local thugs who engage in anti-social behaviour. Humphrey's said that the Labour solution to this problem was more Gardaí to go on the beat in working class areas.

The Labour group on the Dublin city council have been in a coalition with Fianna Fail over the past number of years which has swapped the Lord Mayor position between the parties. The Labour Lord Mayor Dermot Lacey faced much opposition when his casting vote and the vote of 2 Labour Councillors brought in Bin Tax and increases to the charge.

by Jonno Wed May 26, 2004 14:53

The Socialist Party's position is to support genuine left wing community based candidates who have done the work in the areas they are standing in.

That would include Joan but probably not Michael who is standing against a stronger working class community candidate in the form of Joe Mooney.

Cue more trolling?

by Frank Wed May 26, 2004 15:02

I was speaking to an SP member and what you say is probably right. They will be supporting any genuine campainger running in the election that has a community campaign and good record behind him/her. My understanding is this was the reason why Michael Gallagher was not nominated. Joe Mooney and Joan Collins would get support from the SP I'd imagine.

by Jonno Wed May 26, 2004 15:15

If you really have to add a new story every day on whatever idiocy Labour are up to, could you please add them as comments to the last one rather than starting a new thread every time?

by Watcher Wed May 26, 2004 15:48

Their solution is also more Gardai on the beat. Dont forget the SPs support for the Airport cops at Shannon and how they praised the restraint of the cops at Evian, totally ignoring the cop attack on activists on the bridge. They always have a pro cop position.

During the poll tax riots in Britain they threatened to name anarchist protesters to the cops.

by observer Wed May 26, 2004 16:08

What's wrong with that? Or at least what is wrong with calling for the already existing Garda resources to be deployed where theya re most needed in working class areas where anti-social behavoiur is rampant.

What is the alternative? Workers militia I suppose? Or group hugs with joyriders?

by Sp member (personal capacity) Wed May 26, 2004 16:14

Just in case anyone thinks that what "watcher" says is true lets just get a few things striaght.

"Dont forget the SPs support for the Airport cops at Shannon"

The Socialist Party NEVER supported the state forces in Shannon. Just never happened! The points we raised were about the possibility of action from Airport workers. Some then interpreted this as "supporting airport cops".

"and how they praised the restraint of the cops at Evian, totally ignoring the cop attack on activists on the bridge."

There was NEVER praise of "restraint" from police in Evian. One SP member wrote a personal account of his trip to protests in Geneva (not Evian btw) and his personal experience was that there was little action from the police. That's a personal account, there was NO "praise" of the cops!

"During the poll tax riots in Britain they threatened to name anarchist protesters to the cops."

This did not happen. What was proposed by one person was an inquiry that would be made up of democratically accountable activists to see if there were any agents provocateurs that started riots. NEVER was there any chance of names being given to the cops.

"They always have a pro cop position."

Of course if the SP were so "pro cop" would they get jailed and assualted by the state for direct action on the introduction of non-collection of bins. If the SP were "pro cop" would they engage in blockades of the Dail against the war. etc etc.

This idiot trolls like "watcher" is the kind of shit stirrer who is ruining indymedia.

by Watcher Wed May 26, 2004 16:34

The Evian article was not a personal opinion, it was written by Troika member Michael O'Brien in the Voice.The SP have had a year to publish differing views on this but they have failed to do so.

There is no point in rehashing Shannon here. Everyone knows that Domnic Haugh defended the Airport Cops against protesters and that the SP spread scare stories about cops firing into the crowd.

by Jonno Wed May 26, 2004 16:48

SP members, you shouldn't respond to this kind of troll of at all. "Watcher" is a member of another left wing organisation who is choosing to throw abuse from the comfort of anonymity. He (or she) doesn't even have the honesty to make clear his political affiliations.

For anyone who is actually interested in what Michael O'Brien had to say about the cops in Evian and Geneva it was as follows. No praise of any kind, just a factual description:

"Unlike Gothenburg and Genoa, where the capitalist state tried to take the movement on by intimidation and violent repression, the strategy they employed for Geneva and Evian was somewhat different, a backhanded recognition that the movement is here to stay. On this occasion the main blockade and demonstration in Geneva was totally unimpeded by the state. Likewise the French and Swiss border guards, immigration control and customs officers were nowhere to be seen when the mass demonstrations of over 100,000 converged on the border."

Not that mere facts have ever had anything to do with the sectarian agenda of people like "Watcher".

by Watcher Wed May 26, 2004 16:55

What about the bridge where the cops attacked peaceful demonstraters, cutting ropes of those who were abseiling. No mention of this.

by Identifier Wed May 26, 2004 17:26

As one lie is exposed the ground is simply shifted.

Now "Watcher", what did you say your political affiliation is again? Nobody wants your real name if you fear victimisation at work or some such, but surely you don't have any reason not to mention the organisation you are a part of.

Let me guess... like every other anonymous troll you are an "independent activist", just sharing your views, no hidden agenda, nothing to hide, certainly not a member of another left organisation trying desperately to damage a perceived rival...

To which the word "my hole", seem to be the only appropriate response.

by Counter Wed May 26, 2004 17:37

Two

by Watcher Wed May 26, 2004 17:45

My affiliastions are irrelevant. Why dont the SP just deal with the Evian issue. THey just had words of praise for the cops and nothing to say about the attacks on the activists at the bridge.

by Identifier Wed May 26, 2004 18:15

No Watcher. You have already got a couple of serious replies, which is more than your trolling deserved.

You are an anonymous member of another political organisation spreading mud about a perceived rival. You don't even have the honesty, integrity or guts to make your affiliations clear and put your argument (if you have one) in a serious manner.

You are trying to maliciously damage a left wing group, while hiding behind a comfortable cloak of anonymity. That means you aren't worth discussing anything with. As was said to your twin "Pundit" on another thread, try not to hurt yourself swimming around in that bile.

by Watcher Wed May 26, 2004 18:31

By refusing to deal with the Evian, bridge issue. The CWI have a long history of strange relationships with State Oppressive forces.

by Adrian A. Wed May 26, 2004 18:46

I think that Jono and identifier handled that particular trolling episode very well.

It is fairly obvious that most of the "Watchers", "Pundits", "Left Observers" and the like are members of political groups out to spread a bit of shit about their opponents, without it being immediately traceable back to them. People from all of the political backgrounds common on this site, Labour, SP, SWP, Anarchist, SF, whatever, are almost certainly doing it.

I think that much the same response can be used for all of them. Why are you posting anonymously, and if you fear victimisation, why don't you at least make your affilliations clear?

There is no honest reason why anyone would post attacks on a particular left group while keeping their affiliations a secret. If they had a real criticism to make, they would say where they are coming from and make a serious case for their critique. None of this hiding behind anonymity, none of the petty insinuations "you have questions to answer about x" and so on.

Some people will respond with the obvious lies - "I'm an independent activist who is concerned about, blah, blah blah" or the even more hilarious "I'm an oppositional member of the group I'm attacking blah, blah, blah". Some will get a little more sophisticated and claim to be members of groups other than their own, but that makes it much easier for actual supporters of that group to disown the idiots.

Make it clear that you have no intention of engaging with that kind of abuse, point out the dishonesty of their anonymous stance and wave them goodbye. If all of us started to do that, then this whole place might become just that bit more useful.

by Franz Ferdinand Wed May 26, 2004 19:00

The editors need to take the troll problem seriously. I'm sick of not being able to have a proper debate on this site. It's ruining indymedia when these Labour Party, Sinn Fein etc etc members come on and throw around shit stirring lies. Indymedia will remain on the fringes so long as this idiotic behaviour is tolerated.

by Adrian Mole Wed May 26, 2004 19:02

Adrian and Franz should take note that this thread started off with an attack on the Labour Party. Very likely by an SP member. If the SP did less of this nonsense then there might well be less responses to them.

by Adrian A Wed May 26, 2004 19:10

I clearly said in my original post that this behaviour is pretty obviously being engaged in by people from all of the political backgrounds who commonly use this site. ie Labour, SP, SWP, Anarchist and SF.

I have no idea why you think that saying "yeah, but someone who I think is probably in the SP did the same at the top of this thread" is in contradiction to anything I was saying. We need to take a hard line on all of this kind of shit, from anyone. That goes for some numbnuts having an anonymous go at Labour as it does some chucklehead like Watcher.

If you have a serious criticism to make of any political organisation, you should make it in a serious manner. You should do it under your own name, unless you have a very good reason (ie victimisation because you are posting at work or the like). Failing that you should at least make it clear what your own political affiliations are.

Anybody who doesn't do that shouldn't have their anonymous shit-stirring treated with any respect at all, and I don't care who it is they are having a go at.

by Tufty - n/a Wed May 26, 2004 19:19 ezl at eircom dot net

Fact 1: The bin tax money is not being spent on creating a real recycling infrastructure. Our beloved government allowed the only glass recycling plant in the country to close.

- This is not true. "Bin tax" money is legally ring-fenced and HAS to be used for collection and disposal of waste. Local authorities may not spend it on any other service. This service has to be paid for and it makes sense to pay directly for it. The idea of making income tax higher and taking the money from a central pool is inefficient. Also, the fact that "bin tax" is not being spent on infrastructure is not related to how it is collected or paid. It is a matter for the local authority how they spend and what infrastructure they create. Get out on June 11th and vote for councellors who will devote more energy to it!!

Fact 2: The overwhelming majority of landfill waste comes from business, construction, retail and so on. Residential waste is only a tiny part of the problem, but the bin tax is a way of making ordinary punters pay for business pollution.

- While it is true to say that the majority of waste is commercial this isn't the full story. The vast majority of man hours spent on collection is spent on residential waste. The vast majority of 1.5 million households in Ireland get frequent (i.e.weekly) doorstep collection. This is where a significant part of the spend is - not in the disposal! I think should look at the postal system as a similar type service. People pay per letter (or by weight if there is a package). Individuals and businesses both get doorstep service. The commercial sector (and civil service) are by far the biggest users but we individuals still have to buy stamps!

Fact 3: The bin tax is an essential part of the process of privatising local services.

- That is not an arguement, just a statement. It means nothing without facts to back it up.

I'm against the privatisation of public services. I agree that charging individuals would make the service easier to privatise as a "package" but on principal I agree with a pay by weight or volume. I don't agree with creeping increases in price or with low wage families having to pay. I think the comparison with the postal service is valid.

I am also for reasoned debate on this matter as I am just one person and everybody has a right to an opinion. I've just heard too many extreme voices and rhetoric!

I regard paying the local authority directly is more efficient than paying higher income tax and the authority taking the money out of the taxation pool. This way the user pays instead of the paye worker paying more than his fair share (as usual).

I will not be supporting any candidates who want to "axe the tax" but I will be asking all candidates to spend more on recycling. I encourage all to get out and vote!

by Chris Bond Thu May 27, 2004 02:40

The government ought to start penalising companies who use non recyleable packaging in order to upsize their profits this would give them an incentive to use more eco friendly packaging. Maybe coca cola and C&C will go back to using glass bottles rather than plastic ones.

by Joe Thu May 27, 2004 12:37

"on principal I agree with a pay by weight or volume"

So how come above you are defending the fact that ordinary people pay the bulk of the charge on the grounds that it is collection man hours that matter rather than "weight or volume".

by Tufty Thu May 27, 2004 14:43

" So how come above you are defending the fact that ordinary people pay the bulk of the charge on the grounds that it is collection man hours that matter rather than "weight or volume". "

Fair question. Simple answer:

I am happy for ordinary people (not oaps, not unemployed, not low wage) to pay a charge but to get the benefit of creating less waste. The same principle should be applied to the commerical sector. Collection of domestic waste uses the bulk of the resources but people should benefit from using less resources (i.e. space in lorry, landfil etc.)

Irish society in general respond to the stick as opposed to the carrot. For example the plastic bag charge is nominal but has had great success.

To develop my point:
* The PAYE worker already shoulders an unfair balance of taxation in the country. Distributed taxation like the bin charge ( with exceptions for the less well off) allows people to benefit from being good citizens. Paying local authority from the central taxation pool ironically means the PAYE worker - even the low paid - are paying more than their fair share for waste mangement.

* This also means local authorities are under more pressure to create recycling facilities as their customers (i.e. us) will vote them out if they are not doing the business. (I hope).

I dont claim to have all the answers but I have considered my opinion on the above matter and I am comfortable with it. It makes no sense to me that protesors are going to gaol for this.

I respect anybody who takes to the streets to make their world a better place.

On the other hand I wish that the energy that people put into the "axe the tax" campaign was put into issues which are destroying the city like heroin abuse and all the related social problems (of course some are doing both).

Dealing with these issues wont get you pulicity and require alot more of a commitment to your community than blocking council workers doing their jobs.

Either way thanks for the question.
Tufty

by Ray Thu May 27, 2004 15:16

"Distributed taxation like the bin charge ( with exceptions for the less well off) allows people to benefit from being good citizens. Paying local authority from the central taxation pool ironically means the PAYE worker - even the low paid - are paying more than their fair share for waste mangement."

Are you familiar with the concepts of progressive and regressive taxation? Let me explain...
The bin charges are regressive, because everyone, earning 10k or 100k pays the same amount. As a proportion of their income, therefore, high-earners are paying much less.
Income tax, on the other hand, is a progressive tax. The more you earn, the more you pay.

There are two ways of raising money to pay for the bin service. Either everyone pays the same, or the people earning more pay more. If everyone pays the same, then PAYE workers are paying a higher proportion of their income - more than their fair share.
(Even if you think everyone should pay the same, there is no way you could argue that PAYE workers are _better_ off under a regressive system)

by Joe Thu May 27, 2004 15:24

Tufty you seem to have made the same mistake that other pro-bin tax 'progressives' have made which is to project an imaginary bin tax you like onto the bin tax as it actually exists.

Here are the problems
1. The double tax argument - the abolition of rates saw an increase in PAYE taxation to cover the costs of local government. This extra tax is still being collected.

2. The income related argument - taxation should be based on ability to pay, ie it should be related to income and those on low or no income should not have to pay it. The bin tax is a flat rate tax meaning Tony O ' Reilly and Tony O'Reillys bin man pay the same rate. Within a decade local charges may take 5% of the bin mans income. But O'Reilly will be paying less the 0.001% more.

3. The waste management issue - the bin tax was designed as a revenue collection mechanism. Opposition to it meant that various waste management measures are being tacked on to gain support for the tax but these make little sense because of this. Because it is a flat rate tax it will punish the poor for not reducing their waste but will have no impact on the rich. 5% of a bin mans wages may be incentive but 0.001% is nothing for O'Reilly to note.

These are all quite technical. The bigger argument against the tax is ideological.

There are two models for social services
1. The user pays
Which means the rich have access to better services while the poor may have no access. Something like 40% of US citizens have no health insurance for instance. Increasing this is the model pushed by the European corporations on the people of the EU.

2. Society pays
The idea that all should have equal access to services regardless of their income. The introduction of the bin tax is the thin end of a wedge that widens to education and healthcare.

You mention the plastic bag tax. I have no problem with this at all because with a bit of care (carrying a bag around with you) you can reduce the amount you pay on this to close to 0. I think I've paid for two disposable bags since the introduction of the tax. It was not primarly a revenue generation mechanism, the bin tax is.

You could have a rubbish tax that worked in a similar way so that anyone who made a real effort would pay nothing and everyone who made a reasonable effort would pay little. I'd have no problem with this, nor would many others involved in the campaign. Instead we have a tax that no matter how perfect you are (and I compost as well as recycle) still leaves the low paid with a large bill that can only rise in the future.

by Tufty Thu May 27, 2004 15:42

I'm familiar with progressive and regressive taxation. What about if you dont regard the charge as a tax.

What about my comparison with the postal service (i.e. charge per stamp / item). Should those on a higher income pay more for the postal service? Or should An Post be funded out of taxation with no "per unit" charge.

I also think incentivising good waste management (dump less pay less) will improve things for everybody.

Either way I really appreciate your comments as they allow me to make an informed choice and I'm open to all good arguements, which yours are.

by Ray Thu May 27, 2004 15:58

I'm young and healthy. Why should I pay a 'tax' for health care. Wouldn't it be fairer to make people pay for what they use? Then the rich would pay exactly the same as the poor - and PAYE workers would be better off (as long as they didn't get sick). Incentivising health care would make people take better care of their health - at the moment we're rewarding people for getting sick!

I have my own baseball bat at home. Why should I pay for the gardai? Wouldn't it be fairer to make people pay for each crime they wanted investigating? It would reduce the number of nuisance calls...

I don't have kids. Why should I pay for _other_ people's education. Wouldn't it be fairer...

The reasons are the same in each case.
1. Bin collection, like water, health care, or police protection, should not depend on your ability to pay because the consequences for those who can't afford it are too bad. Unlike the consequences of not being able to post a stamp.
2. The consequences to the rest of society of some people not having bin collection are too bad. Uncollected rubbish is a disease vector. Charging for collection encourages illegal dumping.
These reasons are why the government had to change the law in the first place to make non-collection a possibility. When the laws were drafted the first time, everyone realised that rubbish collection was an important public good.

by Joe Thu May 27, 2004 16:02

Whether the state taking money off someone should be called a tax or a banana is a semantic argument I'm not all that interested in. It it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck etc

As to the other questions

"What about my comparison with the postal service (i.e. charge per stamp / item). Should those on a higher income pay more for the postal service? Or should An Post be funded out of taxation with no "per unit" charge."

A comparison of apples and oranges. The disposal of rubbish is not like sending someone a post card. You don't have to send someone a post card you do have to dispose of rubbish. Very few of us spend 500 euro a year on stamps but this is what the bin tax has already risen to in some counties.

"I also think incentivising good waste management (dump less pay less) will improve things for everybody."

Yes but I spent some time above explaining why the bin tax is not about "incentivising good waste management " and how you could design a system that was - with which I wouldn't have a problem.

It's not in other words an equivalent of the plastic bag tax. A plastic bag tax designed the way the bin tax works would simply charge you 200 euro a year for going to the supermarket where I live (central Dublin) or a few miles up the road would charge you 5 euro a visit. The first is no incentive, the second simply one to cram as many bags as you can into each visit. I was in Atlantic in Blanchardstown last month and noted that on prominent display was a big metal lever contraption to compact your waste into the bin.

Briefly if this was about "incentivising good waste management " then the actual cost of the service would still come from central taxation. Then eveyone would get some minimum weekly collection free (say 10kg) and would pay say a euro for every kilo above this. Large families would probably get a larger free allowance as would others with special needs. So in the ideal situation no revenue would be collected because everyone would reduce waste to within the free allowance. Revenue would only come from those too lazy to do so which would suggest that the charge should haved some relation to income to give the rich some incentive as well (lets charge O'Reillly 100 euro a kilo).

The technology already exists for such a system to be implemented and I'd suggest if well designed it would have met with no opposition on the estates. The massive opposition is because most people rightly saw this as not only an extra tax but one that was blatantly unfair. The environmental cause has been done a lot of damage because so many environmentalists were daft enough to support it.

by Ray Thu May 27, 2004 16:08

Joe's post reminds me that in some Scandinavian country, can't remember which one, speeding fines and other fines are not a fixed amount, but a percentage of income. It makes sense - over here Tony O'Reilly could pay most fines from his pocket change, and so can ignore laws that we can't.
So if you want to provide an incentive to people to generate less waste, make sure it's an intelligent incentive that applies equaly to everyone.

by Solas Thu May 27, 2004 18:05

While I am not convinced there is a need for 'extra' gardai on the streets of Dublin or anywhere, there is defintely a problem with how they are deployed. In other words they are not properly or sufficiently deployed in working-class areas to protect the rights and freedoms of working-class people. Instead they are directed to protect property and are at the whim of the wealthy and powerful! The pseudo-left infantiles who are against proper Garda deployment to deal with vicious street thugs and gangsters who prey on working-class communities will probably never realise that this is one of the reasons they get fuck- all support from the working-class. However there also needs to be immediate and radical refrom of the gardai to change its anti-working-class ethos.

by D11 runner Thu May 27, 2004 18:10

"The pseudo-left infantiles who are against proper Garda deployment to deal with vicious street thugs and gangsters who prey on working-class communities will probably never realise that this is one of the reasons they get fuck-all support from the working-class. "

The problem with this analysis, besides from your red bashing, is that the Garda judge everybody from working class areas as scum regardless of their involvment in crime.
This isn't the analysis of a pseudo-left infantile. I'm from Finglas South and the reason why the Garda get fuck all support is because they fail to realise this.
If the Garda were answerable to local communities perhaps things might be different.

by Solas Thu May 27, 2004 19:06

You obviously didn't read what I said about the need for Garda reform. I also said that the gardai have an anti-working class ethos. I know exatcly what they are like and don't agree with it any more than you do. However, the reality is that real people, under siege from scumbags, need immediate assistance not slogans about the cops. The Gardai should be put under pressure and if they fail to respond at least they can be exposed for what they are. If you are just into sloganising and not recognising these facts you do run the danger of inhabiting a pseudo-left infantile world where you will offer no solutions to real problems. As a socialist I don't see how I could be accused of red-bashing. Trying to create a socialist society needs to go hand in hand with dealing with immediate problems now!

by Fingallian Thu May 27, 2004 21:14

Im also in Finglas and I know for a fact that the more Garda presence there is the happier people are. I agree there needs to be more accountability but only an idiot could beleive that they have no role in combatting the scum who make working class people's lives far worse than they already are.

If it was possible to solve anti-social behaviour by a combination of severe beatings and community action to wean people away from crime, I'd be all for it.

Fact is, that is not possible and it is ironic that the only people who have attempted this approach - the republican movement - are attacked as much by the ultra left for this as by the right.

by chris bond Fri May 28, 2004 02:38

Labour are committed to establishing a link between local community boards and the gardai which is a very fair way of policing. Community boards would assess the social problems in the area and deal with matters through the gardai. This is much more efficent and democratic way of dealing with crime than some of the "police state" policies offered by the other main parties.

by Tufty Fri May 28, 2004 13:01

Nothing to add to bin tax / waste charge debate. I'm comfortable with my views but will be keeping a close eye on things.

Agree with your points regarding healthcare and other services. A society should be judged on how it deals with its less fortunate members.

Also support totally many of Labours policies especially regarding local community matters including policing.

Thanks for all your comments. We may not agree but I respect your viewpoint and appreciate the considered nature of it.