rip-off/how much tax do we pay?

[delgirl]

Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"

Can anyone go live in Switzerland? What are the indirect taxes like there?

Switzerland is incredibly beautiful, it's clean, the public transport works like clockwork, the health care is outstanding, I could go on, but you get the idea.

Indirect taxes are high, particularly if you are a property owner, there are all sorts of taxes and levies which we don't have in Ireland.

In Ireland, for example, water is free for domestic use - in Switzerland domestic water usage is metered and then you are charged again for wastewater leaving the property.

In Ireland you can choose whether to go to church and make a donation - in Switzerland if you are Roman Catholic, Protestant or of another Christian denomination, in most cantons you have to pay Church Tax. I'm not sure what percentage of the salary it is, but the total church taxation revenues were $850 million (1.3 billion Swiss francs) in 1997.

In Ireland, if you own your own home - you don't pay any taxes on it. In Switzerland you pay 'Wealth Tax'. For example, if you own a property worth 1m Swiss Francs, the wealth tax would be approx. SFR5,000 which is approx. E3,300 per annum.

In Switzerland property owners pay council tax and pay for each bag of refuse they dispose of on top of the council tax. They also pay for each container of recyclable material left for collection.

In Ireland you are not obliged to have private health insurance, but every person resident in Switzerland must be insured with one of the health insurance companies officially recognised by the Confederation. Health Insurance is not cheap - we pay E165 per month here for VHI cover - my brother-in-law pays around E330 for his family with 1 extra child. My parents in law, who are a lot older and have various maladies, pay approx E650 per month for 2 people.

Bottom line is - the country works extremely well, but it's not cheap!

 

[ClubMan]

Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"

Responding to some of ClubMan's comments: You seem to assume that everyone is as adept at crunching the numbers and knowing what they are entitled to as you are and well educated AAM forum contributors. If it were so easy why does anyone need to post on AAM to seek this advice? And not everyone has access to a computer or the Internet.

I'm not assuming anything of the sort. However people should do whatever is required (by themselves or with the assistance of private advisors or statutory agencies such as MABS or the Citizen Information Centres) to apprise themselves of their entitlements and ensure that they are claiming everything due to them. Nobody needs a computer or the internet to do this. They do need a bit of get up and go but as grown adults some personal responsibility in such matters is required and people should not expect somebody else to do it for them. If people fail to do this and lose out then that's tough. If they then moan about paying too much tax and what a rip-off Ireland is then that's stupid. I can't see how my views on this specific matter are in any way controversial.

Yes the tax burden is more equally distributed now compared to the past but there is a lot of capacity for increasing tax equity.

Such as...?

I am unaware of the possibility of shopping around for electricity, heating, transport (bus/train), phone rental and other basics.

I thought that there were some new electricity service providers in the market now? If not I presume that deregulation will open up this market sooner rather than later. Wasn't that part of the reason for splitting ESB into two - one for the infrastructure and one for service provision - in preparation for deregulation of the market? Trains are a monopoly alright. Buses are not totally. Phone rental can be avoided through mobiles or VoIP/internet telephony. There are several ways of heating one's home so there is choice there. What other basics do you think are restricted to a single option?

Of course I am not suggesting more regulation (the converse) but simply that these essential costs impinge more on low to middle income workers. An obvious solution would be to increase the 20% tax band thus increasing net disposable income. That could be offset by introducing a third tax band for incomes in excess of say €100,000.

Before you meddle with the tax bands/rates you need to show that there is some reason to do this. What is the reason in this case?

I don't see any contradiction is seeking an increase in net income by the widening of tax bands (the equivalent of a tax cut). Why should that impinge on services?

Less tax means that the exchequer has less money for everything including social services etc.

That would benefit all workers but particularly those just above the minimum industrial wage - thus helping to buffer them against rising costs of living.

Again you need to show why this is necessary first. [broken link removed] the average industrial wage is c. €30K as of March 2005 (est.). According to [broken link removed] a single person earning that salary with the standard tax credits on PRSI Class A1 would pay €3282 in tax and €1536 in PRSI/health levy. This means that they pay c. 11% of their gross income in tax and c. 16% in all statutory payroll deductions. This is before additional tax credits/allowances are taken into account. For example common reliefs/allowances would include those for SSIAs, pension contributions, owner occupier mortgage interest, service charges, private health insurance, marginal relief for lower paid, medical expenses etc. Then there are also welfare benefits for the lower paid or unemployed. Maybe you can explain how and why you think that paying 16% (or less if other credits are taken into account) of gross income in tax/PRSI is excessive and what you think it should be?

It is accepted that Ireland is one of the most expensive countries in Europe to live in. Fine if one has an above average net income but far from fine for those barely keeping their heads above water - which is getting deeper by the day!

Accepted by whom?

 

[balga]

Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"

Whether the term "rip off" or expensive is used, I confess to continually making mental comparisons between the cost of a good to me here in Dublin, and the cost (to me) of a similar good in Perth, WAustralia. Perhaps such a comparison is fair, perhaps not. I do it anyway.
Some people seem to believe that Dublin (or Ireland) is expensive. I certainly believe that some goods I buy are. I have always asked myself why this should be. Perhaps I have experienced two examples that allow almost direct comparison.
I was involved closely in the leasing of retail (shopping) space in Ireland based on a similar format to that of over 150 units spread across Australia. The rental cost per square foot here was just under three times that of the average Australian cost. Supply and demand? No problems with that argument, simply presenting my experience.
Not so long ago the WAustralian authorities decided to close a turn of the century built maximum security prison. Casuarina prison was built on crown land on the outskirts of Perth. Immediate price of land zero. The closed prison, Fremantle prison is now one of the major tourist attractions in the port city of Fremantle.
Simply two examples in my experience.

 

[CCOVICH]

Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"

Bottom line is - the country works extremely well, but it's not cheap!

So the country offers value for money (taxes)?

That's my main problem with Ireland, not necessarily the tax burden per se, but the return I get on my taxes. I have to admit, it's getting better, i.e. I have the M1 which has shaved anything up to 45 minutes off my journey up to the hills (still a toll road though), there is the prospect of a bit more room on the DART when the eight carriage trains come on line. But then we have the disgrace that is the M50, the Carrickmacross bypass, which should be a better road that it actually is, and the messing around that is going on with the new prison in North County Dublin.

 

[ClubMan]

Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"

So the country offers value for money (taxes)?

How do you adjudge that to be the case? What about the other issues that delgirl mentioned such as mandatory private health insurance, religious taxes (for those that profess certain faiths), annual property/wealth taxes, indirect taxes that apply there but not here etc.? I can't imagine that most people would be happy with these additional/higher taxes even if the quid pro quo was "better" services and what have you.

That's my main problem with Ireland, not necessarily the tax burden per se...

Just to clarify, the reason I went into some detail about the tax issue is that others here and elsewhere incorrectly claimed or insinuated that, in Ireland, we face a heavy or onerous tax burden and, based on an analysis of direct/statutory payroll deductions, I have tried to show that this is not necessarily the case.

 

[CCOVICH]

Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"

How do you adjudge that to be the case?

I don't adjudge anything to be the case, hence the ? I was questioning whether delgirl thought the Switzerland offered value for money. Given that I have never lived in, or visited Switzerland, I would not presume to know anything about the place other than what delgirl and casiopea have outlined here, and that they will more than likely finish ahead of us in WC qualifying.

What about the other issues that delgirl mentioned such as mandatory private health insurance, religious taxes (for those that profess certain faiths), annual property/wealth taxes, indirect taxes that apply there but not here etc.?

Yes, I noticed these, and I wouldn't be keen on a religious tax for one, but look, I'm not trying to make out that Switzerland is better than Ireland, I'm just interested in people's experiences of other countries. You seem to assume that I am all "anti-Ireland", I'm not, I believe that this State has it's good points and bad points, like every other country in the world.

We had the opportunity to move to the US or the Caribbean around 2-3 years ago. We chose to buy an apartment here, and it's likely we'll be here for the rest of our lives. So I don't think it's that bad at all. But certain things frustrate/annoy me from time to time. Fair enough?

I can't imagine that most people would be happy with these additional/higher taxes even if the quid pro quo was "better" services and what have you.

Maybe, maybe not. What might be interesting would be a poll, a la the feature they have on boards.ie? I couldn't predict in advance what the result would be, but I think that one or two people on AAM have mentioned that they wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if it meant better services, but that doesn't imply that any more than one or two think so.

 

[ClubMan]

Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"

I don't adjudge anything to be the case, hence the ?

Fair enough - I read it as a stament or at least a rhetorical question rather than a question directed at delgirl.

You seem to assume that I am all "anti-Ireland", I'm not

I have neither said nor, I believe anyway, insinuated that at any stage in this thread in reference to any individual's views. I am merely dealing with the issues in hand and trying to tease them out based on discussion of the underlying facts rather than generalities.

We had the opportunity to move to the US or the Caribbean around 2-3 years ago. We chose to buy an apartment here, and it's likely we'll be here for the rest of our lives. So I don't think it's that bad at all. But certain things frustrate/annoy me from time to time. Fair enough?

Yes - but in the context of this thread I thought that we were trying to get away from the generalities and down to specifics - if not in the definition of the "rip-off" catchphrase then at least in terms of what people consider a rip-off and what is something else like high prices etc.

Maybe, maybe not. What might be interesting would be a poll, a la the feature they have on boards.ie? I couldn't predict in advance what the result would be, but I think that one or two people on AAM have mentioned that they wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if it meant better services, but that doesn't imply that any more than one or two think so.

I don't think that that would help us much to be honest - internet (and tele, text etc.) polls are meaningless because they are not a done on a rigorous scientific basis involving the careful phrasing of questions (so as not to lead) and careful selection of the sample queried.

 

[sherib]

Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"

http://www.valueireland.com/warned/youve_been_warned.htm
Come on now ClubMan, a little while ago you conceded there was overcharging in Ireland yet continue to reject any suggestion of this when it's posted here. It would become boring and wearing to respond to every sentence but what exactly does this mean to ordinary people - in simple language without stone walling or paralytic analysis:

Originally posted by ClubMan
I thought that there were some new electricity service providers in the market now? If not I presume that deregulation will open up this market sooner rather than later. Wasn't that part of the reason for splitting ESB into two - one for the infrastructure and one for service provision - in preparation for deregulation of the market? Trains are a monopoly alright. Buses are not totally. Phone rental can be avoided through mobiles or VoIP/internet telephony. There are several ways of heating one's home so there is choice there. What other basics do you think are restricted to a single option?

I respect your powers of analysis but the above comments are disingenuous. You seem to be playing around with words just for the sake of it, e.g. "there are several ways of heating one's home so there is choice there". Irrelevant comment on this issue which is about the cost and not the choice. Would you recommend candles?

Delgirl's confirms the points people have been attempting to make while being squashed like flies when they hold a different viewpoint. That isn't debate.

Originally quoted by Delgirl
Switzerland is incredibly beautiful, it's clean, the public transport works like clockwork, the health care is outstanding, I could go on, but you get the idea. Indirect taxes are high, particularly if you are a property owner, there are all sorts of taxes and levies which we don't have in Ireland. In Ireland, for example, water is free for domestic use - in Switzerland domestic water usage is metered and then you are charged again for wastewater leaving the property.

Why shouldn't these charges be levied here? We have the worst of both worlds - high indirect taxation without the benefit of excellent services.

In fact we did have property tax here (does no one remember?) and water charges where I live but these were abolished and I'd like to know why. IMO property tax should be levied on properties valued in excess of €1M. That in fact in one of the worst scandals - no property tax on the increasing number of very high cost homes, yet all the benefits of schools, third level education and untaxed child benefit are available to such people. The benefits are disproportunate to the contribution as a % of income. That's what I mean by inequity and if that is not clear I can't explain it better. It is my opinion and I am sticking to it.

You repeatedly ask for evidence - well, what about opening your eyes and popping into one of our public hospitals? When you've done that, get the figures for the numbers attending third level education based on demography. Yes, it's a wonderful country for some (so why would they complain) but it is both economically and socially an increasingly unequal society for a large majority who, unfortunately, don't vote. Even if they did, which of our main parties would represent their interests? They are not members of the cosy club network - who have reaped more than their share of the Celtic Tiger's spoils.

 

[CCOVICH]

Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"

I have neither said nor, I believe anyway, insinuated that at any stage in this thread in reference to any individual's views.

Not on this thread, but you have referred to me as a "Rip Off Ireland merchant" on another thread?

Yes - but in the context of this thread I thought that we were trying to get away from the generalities and down to specifics - if not in the definition of the "rip-off" catchphrase then at least in terms of what people consider a rip-off and what is something else like high prices etc.

I don't know, maybe I've gone OT, but I was just responding to posts by others. As regards specifics, I already mentioned the M50, the Carrickmacross bypass, and the prison fiasco. These projects represent poor value/rip offs to me.

I don't think that that would help us much to be honest - internet (and tele, text etc.) polls are meaningless because they are not a done on a rigorous scientific basis involving the careful phrasing of questions (so as not to lead) and careful selection of the sample queried.

Fair enough. It was just a thought that I had. But interestingly, would you not trust some of the contributors (e.g. mods and admins )to this site to phrase questions carefully? And the sample queried, would be registered AAMers? It wouldn't be conclusive of course, but would give a 'flavour' of how AAMers feel on certain issues (Yes or no).

 

[podgerodge]

Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"

stupid examples like mix grills and oxford dict. definitions of "rip-off".

Cas.

I'm sorry , but for once I wish to object to the above statement. You, no-more than me or anyone else, as depicted in last night's deletion of comments, has a right to state that these are "stupid" examples. IMHO the example of a "mixed grill" is equally as important when discussing this issue as any 'more important' issues that you may feel require discussion.

I would like to feel that comments such as those could be edited as well - I thought this was a 'respect each others views' website but am beginning to wonder.

Im trying to get away from the term rip-off
Cas.

I thought the topic was of this thread WAS rip-off

 

[ClubMan]

Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"

http://www.valueireland.com/warned/youve_been_warned.htm
Come on now ClubMan, a little while ago you conceded there was overcharging in Ireland yet continue to reject any suggestion of this when it's posted here.

Where precisely did I deny that overcharging or rip-offs never happen in Ireland? I think that you'll find that you are mistaken if you think that I did. If you read my earlier reference to that link you will see that I very clearly agreed that at least some of the issues raised in the article were, indeed, genuine rip-offs that merited attention and rectification.

It would become boring and wearing to respond to every sentence but what exactly does this mean to ordinary people - in simple language without stone walling or paralytic analysis:

...

Would you recommend candles?

I don't understand the seeming sarcasm implied by some of what you have posted, not least of all the above, but I will overlook that and respond nonetheless for what it's worth...

I respect your powers of analysis but the above comments are disingenuous. You seem to be playing around with words just for the sake of it, e.g. "there are several ways of heating one's home so there is choice there". Irrelevant comment on this issue which is about the cost and not the choice. Would you recommend candles?

No - my point was that there are choices in terms of the main energy sources to use for, say, home heating and not all of these presumably cost the same - e.g. OFCH, GFCH, electricity not to mention some of the other more niche options. Are you saying that all of these cost the same to install and run and thus that people have no choice in terms of what they install and the price that they pay?

Delgirl's confirms the points people have been attempting to make while being squashed like flies when they hold a different viewpoint. That isn't debate.

More misplaced hyperbole - I have merely discussed and dissected the issues in hand. Neither I nor anybody else has "squashed like flies" others or their opinions. I think it's a good idea to stick to discussion of the issues rather than attempting to deflect from them by insinuating that some people are engaging in some sort of war of (words) attrition. That is not my intention anyway but I will continue to argue my case and challenge others where I feel it's necessary. That is the nature of mature discussion.

Why shouldn't these charges be levied here? We have the worst of both worlds - high indirect taxation without the benefit of excellent services.

So are you admitting that we don't have high direct taxation and that the problem, if any, lies specifically with indirect taxation? I never said that the taxes mentioned above that are levied in Switzerland should not be levied here. I just made the point that I personally doubt that many people would go for higher and more taxation regardless of the potential payoffs. I could be wrong. Maybe if/when people vote in a Government that stands on a policy of higher taxes and better services it will prove me wrong.

In fact we did have property tax here (does no one remember?) and water charges where I live but these were abolished and I'd like to know why.

Yes - I remember both. But I don't understand what it is that you attribute their abolition to. Maybe you can clarify? If I'm not mistaken water charges, which were paid by some people including my own services, were abolished when people simply did not comply with the law requiring them to pay. A bit like certain attempts to boycott bin charges but with more effect. Surely this puts a lie to the claim that people would pay higher taxes to fund better services (e.g. the proper upgrade and maintenance of our public water systems which are, in many case, decrepit and inefficient)?

IMO property tax should be levied on properties valued in excess of €1M.

Why €1M specifically?

That in fact in one of the worst scandals - no property tax on the increasing number of very high cost homes, yet all the benefits of schools, third level education and untaxed child benefit are available to such people. The benefits are disproportunate to the contribution as a % of income. That's what I mean by inequity and if that is not clear I can't explain it better. It is my opinion and I am sticking to it.

Fair enough but you might sway people to your way of thinking if you could post some hard facts and figures to back it up.

You repeatedly ask for evidence - well, what about opening your eyes and popping into one of our public hospitals?

I never said that our public health system was some sort of paragon of excellence. I am aware of some of the problems having helped to nurse my terminally ill father in hospital a few years back, and currently attending a public maternity hospital with my wife. In both cases we had no problems with facilities and treatment but A&E was a disaster when my father was admitted one time, not least of all because of (a) the number of frivolous cases and (b) the number of junkies and drunks attending, wasting the time of the staff and making life generally uncomfortable (and sometimes dangerous) for everybody. I don't understand your point about opening my eyes as if I am deliberately ignoring things. I have lived my whole life in Ireland and believe that this gives me as much right as anybody else to give my views on matters. If you disagree with me - fair enough - but at least argue your case rather than simply dismissing mine.

When you've done that, get the figures for the numbers attending third level education based on demography. Yes, it's a wonderful country for some (so why would they complain) but it is both economically and socially an increasingly unequal society for a large majority who, unfortunately, don't vote. Even if they did, which of our main parties would represent their interests? They are not members of the cosy club network - who have reaped more than their share of the Celtic Tiger's spoils.

Maybe you could help me out by linking to and, ideally, analysing these figures to support your argument.

In my opinion yet again somebody (you in this case) is taking a very generalised and scatter-gun approach to blaming our ills on rip-off Ireland or whatever you want to call it. Read back over your post and notice how generalised the arguments and issues are and how bereft of supporting facts, figures and information it is.

Please don't take any of this personally - I won't take your sarcastic comments personally - but try to understand the points that I am making based on discussion of the issues rather than any clash of personalities. That's what killed the last thread on this issue.

 

[ClubMan]

Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"

Not on this thread, but you have referred to me as a "Rip Off Ireland merchant" on another thread?

I thought that I already explained that that was intended as a facetious comment and that I had apologised for any offence or embarassment caused. If I did not then I do so here.

I don't know, maybe I've gone OT, but I was just responding to posts by others. As regards specifics, I already mentioned the M50, the Carrickmacross bypass, and the prison fiasco. These projects represent poor value/rip offs to me.

But why precisely.

Fair enough. It was just a thought that I had. But interestingly, would you not trust some of the contributors (e.g. mods and admins )to this site to phrase questions carefully? And the sample queried, would be registered AAMers? It wouldn't be conclusive of course, but would give a 'flavour' of how AAMers feel on certain issues (Yes or no).

Internet polls are a crock. That's why we never enabled them on AAM.

 

[CCOVICH]

Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"

I thought that I already explained that that was intended as a facetious comment and that I had apologised for any offence or embarassment caused. If I did not then I do so here.

Thanks. You had said that you were half joking.

But why precisely.

1. Have you ever used the M50? Try it on a weekday morning anytime from around 7 am. You'll find yourself in city centre style traffic (moving at roughly 5 mph) until you get to a toll bridge where you are then requested to pay for the privlege of using the road. At the weekends, it can be nearly as bad. That's my experience of it, I think it represents poor value for money. Others are free to disagree of course.

2. Have you ever used the Carrickmacross bypass? A fine idea, but a badly designed road with little scope for safe overtaking. Avoiding the traffic in the town is great, finding yourself stuck behind an agricultural vehicle the whole length of the bypass. That's my experience of it, I think it represents poor value for money. Again, others are free to disagree of course.

3. The prison fiasco. The government has paid 6? times the agricultural value for a piece of land to site a new prison in North County Dublin. It now looks as if this land may never be used for a prison, not least among the reasons is that local residents have appealed to the Minister not to go ahead with the prison, otherwise they will go to court. It may go ahead in the end, but again, I feel the that costs to date (an in all likelyhood the final costs) represent poor value for money, or at least a waste of taxpayers funds (i.e. don't spend over the odds for land that may prove useless)

Now that's why I feel these projects represent poor value/a rip off IMHO. Anyone can disagree with my interpretation, but I am free to feel this way.

Internet polls are a crock. That's why we never enabled them on AAM.

Fine. I assume that's opinion as opposed to fact?

 

[ubiquitous]

Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"

The odd thing is that the only reason the M50 and the Carrickmacross bypass aren't bigger, better roads is because of the refusal of government to spend additional funds on both projects. It may well be the case the society as a whole would be much better off had more money been spent on these roads, but the bottom line is that we, the taxpayers, would be funding the additional costs in the form of higher taxes or tolls. In that scenario, some people would label the tax or toll increases as a "rip off" Which came first the chicken or the egg?

If the govt paid only 6 times agricultural value for the North Dublin prison land, then they got remarkable value for money. Any tuppence-ha'penny half-acre site in my part of the country can command prices of up to or over €100k - over ten times the going rate for agri land.

 

[casiopea]

Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"

You, no-more than me or anyone else, as depicted in last night's deletion of comments, has a right to state that these are "stupid" examples.

I would like to feel that comments such as those could be edited as well - I thought this was a 'respect each others views' website but am beginning to wonder.

Hi Podgerodge,
When I said this I was talking in context of Eddie Hobbs example on his show and not you or any other poster on this board. I do respect your views. I was trying to say, albeit somewhat unsuccessfully given how much Ive had to explain, that Eddie hobbs show has us talking about how our taxes are spent and that is a good thing. I was trying to move away from this term "rip-off" as I felt it was being used too widely and loosely, for example the mixed grill.

Regarding the Catholic Tax, I pay roughly 200 euro a year here on catholic tax. Some time back when there was a heated debate about the catholic church in Ireland I mentioned this as a positive about the Irish Catholic Church.

So the country offers value for money (taxes)?

Yes, I believe so. This is where Im going when I said yesterday that the irish government needs to address how irish tax money is spent.

 

[ClubMan]

Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"

Thanks. You had said that you were half joking.

Just to clarify - I was fully joking.

1. Have you ever used the M50? Try it on a weekday morning anytime from around 7 am. You'll find yourself in city centre style traffic (moving at roughly 5 mph) until you get to a toll bridge where you are then requested to pay for the privlege of using the road. At the weekends, it can be nearly as bad. That's my experience of it, I think it represents poor value for money. Others are free to disagree of course.

Is this totally a problem with the way in which the road was constructed? Surely the fact that so many people feel the need to drive their private cars (often with a single occupant) is also a contributory factor and another obvious inefficiency in the overall system?

2. Have you ever used the Carrickmacross bypass? A fine idea, but a badly designed road with little scope for safe overtaking. Avoiding the traffic in the town is great, finding yourself stuck behind an agricultural vehicle the whole length of the bypass. That's my experience of it, I think it represents poor value for money. Again, others are free to disagree of course.

Again how is this necessarily a problem with the road itself as opposed to the vehicles that use it?

3. The prison fiasco. The government has paid 6? times the agricultural value for a piece of land to site a new prison in North County Dublin. It now looks as if this land may never be used for a prison, not least among the reasons is that local residents have appealed to the Minister not to go ahead with the prison, otherwise they will go to court. It may go ahead in the end, but again, I feel the that costs to date (an in all likelyhood the final costs) represent poor value for money, or at least a waste of taxpayers funds (i.e. don't spend over the odds for land that may prove useless)

OK - this is a bit more specific and I would totally agree that if this is the case then it certainly merits investigation so that at the very least we can learn from whatever mistakes have been made and can avoid the same thing again in the future.

If you have more specific facts and figures about the projects in question that illustrate how you believe they represent value for money I'd be interested in seeing them

Now that's why I feel these projects represent poor value/a rip off IMHO. Anyone can disagree with my interpretation, but I am free to feel this way.

Of course - but we can hardly come to conclusions on the topics in hand on anecdotal evidence alone, can we?

Fine. I assume that's opinion as opposed to fact?

Yes - but I'm sure that internet polls are not statistically sound although I'd have to root out some relevant research articles...

 

[ubiquitous]

Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"

In fairness, when any government in any country spends a number of billions a year, there will always be some element of waste. The Comptroller & Auditor General's office has done a fantastic job in the past decade or so in identifying this waste when it occurs and in setting up auditing and accounability process to ensure that similar incidents are minimised or avoided altogether in the future. In the rare occasions that Ministers bypass these accountability processes to push pet projects (for example, Punchestown Event Centre), the existence of these processes mean that the citizens of the country can find out the details quickly and then it is up to them to make their own mind up on the politicians responsible.

 

[CCOVICH]

Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"

Is this totally a problem with the way in which the road was constructed? Surely the fact that so many people feel the need to drive their private cars (often with a single occupant) is also a contributory factor and another obvious inefficiency in the overall system?.

Not totally, but the fact that they are in the process of adding more lanes suggests that there is a problem with the way the road is constructed (of course some of the problem is caused by increasing demand). Wrt to people feeling the need to drive their cars, I don't think all of them would if they felt that there was a viable alternative to travelling from North County Dublin/Swords/Meath to South County Dublin. A metro/train to Swords, the building of the city centre interconnector etc. may of course alleviate some of the problems with the M50, but that's some way off at this stage.

Again how is this necessarily a problem with the road itself as opposed to the vehicles that use it?

Because the design of the road doesn't faciltate safe (or indeed legal) overtaking for long streches. Wrt to the vehicles that use it, unless they are barred from doing so, they will continue (and have every right) to do so.

OK - this is a bit more specific and I would totally agree that if this is the case then it certainly merits investigation so that at the very least we can learn from whatever mistakes have been made and can avoid the same thing again in the future.

If you have more specific facts and figures about the projects in question that illustrate how you believe they represent value for money I'd be interested in seeing them

That's all I've heard for the moment I'm afraid, and it may very well work out ok, but I wouldn't hold my breath, especially based on what the head of the residents/community association was saying on The Last Word the other evening.

Of course - but we can hardly come to conclusions on the topics in hand on anecdotal evidence alone, can we?

No, wouldn't expect that we come to any conclusion, but it's interesting to debate these issues anyway, even in the absence of conclusive proof one way or another, isn't it?

Yes - but I'm sure that internet polls are not statistically sound although I'd have to root out some relevant research articles...

Don't feel you have to, it's a moot point, and one that I'm not going to argue. I just couldn't resist that 'dig' on the fact that it was an opinion offered without conclusive proof .

 

[CCOVICH]

Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"

The odd thing is that the only reason the M50 and the Carrickmacross bypass aren't bigger, better roads is because of the refusal of government to spend additional funds on both projects. It may well be the case the society as a whole would be much better off had more money been spent on these roads, but the bottom line is that we, the taxpayers, would be funding the additional costs in the form of higher taxes or tolls. In that scenario, some people would label the tax or toll increases as a "rip off" Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Fair enough. Some people would indeed refuse to pay more for better services, or label the increased costs of better service as a 'rip off'

If the govt paid only 6 times agricultural value for the North Dublin prison land, then they got remarkable value for money. Any tuppence-ha'penny half-acre site in my part of the country can command prices of up to or over €100k - over ten times the going rate for agri land.

But what if this land is never turned into a prison? What value has the land to the taxpayer in that scenario?

 

[ubiquitous]

Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"

Time will tell if the prison land acquistion was a good idea or not. The only thing is that if the State has acted improperly or recklessly in relation to the purchase, there is at least the comfort to taxpayers that there are decent regulatory mechanisms in place to bring the details of the matter to public attention and to apportion blame where necessary. There is also the assurance that the State does have rigorous procedures in place for the purchase of land for public infrastructure purposes, and that to satisfy these procedures the relevant authorities must demonstrate to the Dept of Finance that each project is ultimately feasible on both an economic and on a planning basis. In that context, there is a strong level of assurance to the taxpayer that the State must have had convincing expert opinion to hand that confirmed to them that the prison development is feasible in that location. It might not suit the residents associations or other objectors to admit this but that is the reality.

If one is to argue that the State should never acquire land without zoning or planning permission for infrastructural developments, then the State is left in a situation where it has much less flexibility to negotiate in the course of such acquisitions. This would mean that it would be in a much weaker position to achieve value for money in any such deals.