# Cork Co Manager on Bin Charges



## daltonr (27 Sep 2003)

The Cork County Manager made a statement this morning (Friday) that I thought would send shockwaves through the Bin Charges debate.

He said that they had to increase bin charges this year to balance the overall books.  It was in the context of meeting the cost of benchmarking at local level.  He also suggested there would be further increases next year.

Wait for it...  Because people were recycling more and throwing less out for land fill, their income is dropping!!!!!

That surely boulsters the argument that Bin Charges are not a means of paying for waste disposal, they are a local tax.  And they are a bad tax because they are not linked to income.

If we're going to have polluter pays, then surely the polluter should only pay for pollution, not for roads, civil servant salaries etc.  And Those who take steps to recycle should be rewarded, not have charges increased to make up for the drop in income.

This might explain the huge difference in bin charges in each area.  It's not based on how much is costs to dispose of the waste,  It's based on the size of the local authorities overall deficit.

Waterford it turns out charges the same to dispose of a Green Recycle Bin as a Regular Rubbish Bin for Landfill.  Talk about an unenlightened way of tackling the problem.

Taking away the recycle bin free, or for a reduced price would mean a drop in income.

For the record I'm in favour of Bin Charges, I don't agree with blocking trucks, but I would support anyone who refuses to pay their own charges, on the condition that they legally handle their own waste.

-Rd


----------



## stobear (29 Sep 2003)

Whilst walking the dog on Saturday, I saw a green bin and a black bin parked outside someones house waiting for collection. The company is one of about 4 in the area competing for business, as I walked past I saw an 8Euro tag on the black bin 'and' another 8Euro tag on the green bin. I asked the house holder about the green bin tag and they were 'sure' they needed to tag it as well.........but will the company clarify it for them? Wait and see next bin installment .....

Stobear


----------



## daltonr (29 Sep 2003)

According to a survey out today, the majority of people are in favour of a pay by weight system.  I wonder if the survey asked people what they thought of paying the same to dispose of a bag of recyclable waste as a bag of landfill waste.

If there is any justice at all it should be cheaper for the consumer to dispose of waste responsibly than irresponsibly.

Also, if "Service charges" are being used to fund local authorities rather than cover the cost of providing services, then the protesters in Dublin are right.  It's a Tax not a service charge, and it should be proportional to income.

-Rd


----------



## darag (29 Sep 2003)

will private companies not be allowed to ever compete?
this attitude towards bin charges on the part of councils 
will ruin the whole idea and make it impossible to introduce
other progressive charges like water metering.


----------



## daltonr (30 Sep 2003)

As far as I know when I lived in Wicklow the rubbish collection was privately run.  But only one company had the franchise.

I say "as far as I know" because I took what little rubbish I had directly to the land fill and ended up paying about €30 for the year.  Combined with recycling, a small shed and a lot of Black Plastic Sacks can be a great investment.

The nimby attitude to land fills is interesting.  I though it was great having one a few miles away.  I don't know if people living closer had complaints, but I had none.

-Rd.


----------



## dakar (30 Sep 2003)

*recycling*

Would like to make the point that there's really no reason to assume that it should be cheaper to send waste for recycling than for landfill. One might like to think that because you're doing something socially responsible by recycling that you should be somehow rewarded, ie by paying less. 
But the real issue is that you've still produced the waste, you still need to get rid of it, it still costs to deal with it - whether by shoving it all in a hole in the ground or by getting someone else to recover/recycle it somehow.


----------



## daltonr (30 Sep 2003)

*Re: recycling*

Oh, I accept that dakar.  It's a perfectly valid point. 

But......    

If you take the premise that we want to discourage certain behaviour (i.e. Landfilling), and encourage other behaviour (i.e. recycling) then the best way (in my opinion) is to make the undesirable behaviour cost more than the desirable behaviour.  

This may mean making recyclers pay only the actual cost of dealing with their waste, and putting a premium on landfill waste (premium used to continually improve the recycling facilities).   

Some local authorities claim to have initiated a polluter pays system, but if you pay the same to dispose of waste responsibly then it isn't really polluter pays.  It's just tax on consumption, and we already pay VAT for that.

-Rd


----------



## BBBSheep (30 Sep 2003)

*Privitise*

_will private companies not be allowed to ever compete?_
Why of course they will, sure isn't the whole purpose of the bin charges exercise to introduce privitisation to the waste collection industry anyhow?

Here's a thought:
You know it's approx €250 to dump a tonne of waste in a landfill in the South of the country (Cork Co Co), and on average, per year, a typical household produces 1.5 tonnes, which means the cost amounts to €425 per year. Thus, Mr Private Waste collector tells you he has to increase his charges (€425) - it's not his fault!

However, what if Mr Private Waste collector then dumps the rubbish in Northern Ireland at a cost of £50 per tonne? A typical dump truck takes 24 tonnes - dump that in Cork, it shall cost you €6000. But dump it in NI, and it shall cost you £1200 (approx).

Now isn't Mr Private Waste collector doing well for himself, along with increased charges?

What if, huh?


----------



## darag (30 Sep 2003)

*Re: Privitise*

I've no problem with that scenario BBBSheep.  As
long as all operators are licensed to ensure the 
collected rubbish doesn't end up in a hole in Jimmy
Mac's farm or in the sea.  If I know the rubbish is
being disposed of properly and legally I'd have no
problem with going with a private operator who
charges 200 a year instead of 450 a year even if it 
involved exporting the landfill stuff.


----------



## BBBSheep (30 Sep 2003)

*Think again*

Darag,

What about an operator who charges you €450 (due to local costs, and you as punter has to bear them) and then exports the rubbish at a far far less cost to himself?

Would you have a problem with that?


----------



## Dowee (30 Sep 2003)

*Re: Privitise*

My understanding of BBBSheep's posting was the Private Company was using the Cork Co Co's charges as a basis for increasings his costs whereas in reality they have no effect on his overheads as he's dumping it up North.


----------



## Dowee (30 Sep 2003)

*Re: Privitise*

Posts crossed


----------



## darag (30 Sep 2003)

*Re: Privitise*

BBBSheep, I was assuming some sort of market forces
would apply.  If the operator doing that was making 
such fabulous profits, there would be plenty of others 
keen to offer the same service for less.  If the service
was properly regulated I don't see why this wouldn't 
happen.


----------



## Elcato (30 Sep 2003)

*Re: Privitise*

Except that due to our road infastructure it would take him a day to unload the gear up the North not to mention the juice cost and the tolls .......


----------



## BBBSheep (30 Sep 2003)

*Look again*

Darag, I think you still don't get the scenario.
He is deceiving the punter while creaming off him. Market forces would only come into play if the punter knew he/she was being deceived, and decided to use another operator who was only creaming the punter for half.

As for the costs, consider the juice, and the tolls, and the full day's pay for the trucker - do they add up to the difference between £1200 and €6000? I don't think so.


----------



## darag (1 Oct 2003)

*Re: Look again*

BBBSheep, i don't understand.  If one guy is asking for 450,
and another one is asking for 250, the punter has a very
easy choice?  I don't think that deception comes into it
or if it does, it doesn't last too long in a free market.  This 
is the whole idea of allowing competition.  If the punter is
paying the 450 and is too lazy to look around for alternatives,
well, there isn't much you can do about that.


----------



## rainyday (1 Oct 2003)

*Re: Look again*

Hi BBBSheep - Since when has any business been obliged to set their charges in relation to their costs? Any business in a free economy is entitled to charge as much as the market will bear - Would you do anything different if you were running your own business?


----------



## daltonr (1 Oct 2003)

*Re: Look again*



> Since when has any business been obliged to set their charges in relation to their costs?



Therein lies the rub.  If essential services are privatised we pay for the service plus the profit for the operator.  If they are publically operated then we should only be paying for the cost (in my opinion), but of course we end up paying above the odds to fund local government budgets.

I've thought about this a lot since the Bin Charges issues blew up and I've decided that I'm against Martin Cullens mantra of low tax, with service charges.  Particularly if there are dozens of local authorities with completely different schemes and charges.  We're a small enough country.  Give us 3 or 4 provincial councils and it'll do the same job.

I did a quick tot up of about 10 service charges/taxes/levy's/stamp duties that a typical family might pay over and above income tax/prsi/Health Levy.
For the 10 items I could think of off the top of my head the bill came to between 4000 and 5000 per year.

That represents a much bigger proportion of a low income families income, than a high earner.  The worst off are large families on low incomes (until recently a typical Irish Family).

But we keep getting charges stripped out from income tax to preserve the myth that tax is not increasing.  The net result is we're widening the gap between rich and poor.  Something I've never had a problem with per se (it's difficult to stop the rich leveraging their wealth, and I think it's more important to raise the worst off than to try to keep everyone together), but we shouldn't have a tax regime that promotes and protects a widenning gap.  It may be inevitable, but there's no reason to help it along.

I appear to be turning into a socialist.  Very worrying.
I've been frequenting the same threads as Rainyday for far too long.  Where did I leave that Thatcher Biography?

-Rd


----------



## BBBSheep (1 Oct 2003)

*Once more*

_My understanding of BBBSheep's posting was the Private Company was using the Cork Co Co's charges as a basis for increasings his costs whereas in reality they have no effect on his overheads as he's dumping it up North_
Thank you Dowee! Which means the punter gets screwed (burden of increased costs) and deceived (no extra costs for operator).

Darag, do you honestly think an operator will charge €450 while another operator in the same area is charging €200? Do you? Do you honestly think that's how markets work? Gee, maybe operators are so stupid they don't check each others prices. 

Which brings me onto an important question in the advent of the privatisation of waste collection - how big is the differential between operators charges in any area? Would it be 5% or 10%? My bet is that there shall be little differential, and when one operator increases charges, the others shall follow. I base this on the nature of the industry where punters will not typically switch operators.


----------



## rainyday (1 Oct 2003)

*Re: Once more*



> I've been frequenting the same threads as Rainyday for far too long. Where did I leave that Thatcher Biography?


Funnily enough, my current reading material is an 'inside' story of Thatcher's regime by one of her advisors!
NanahNanahNanahNanah (that's the Twilight Zone riff for those of you who didn't recognise it)


----------



## Dowee (1 Oct 2003)

*Re: Once more*



> NanahNanahNanahNanah (that's the Twilight Zone riff for those of you who didn't recognise it)



I thought it was the tune to Batman!!!


----------



## darag (1 Oct 2003)

*Re: Once more*



> Darag, do you honestly think an operator will charge
> ~@450 while another operator in the same area is
> charging ~@200? Do you? Do you honestly think that's how
> markets work? Gee, maybe operators are so stupid they
> don't check each others prices.


I'm getting more confused; that's my point too?  There's
no way an operator will try to compete by charging 450 a
year (and thus "ripping off" people) when someone else
offers to do it for 250?

This discussion seems to be turning into some general
argument about market forces, information, profits and
prices.  If you don't believe that market forces cause
profit margins to fall over time, then we disagree at a
fundamental level.  A commodity service of "making this
bag of rubbish disappear from my driveway" is likely to
be even more sensitive to market forces than most other
services.

Obviously if the councils create public or private
monopolies in order to enrich themselves or unfairly
restrict entry into the market then market forces wont
be able to wield their magic.

Classic examples of what happens when you unfairly
restrict entry into the market are pubs and pharmacies
which make unreasonable profits and punters can 
reasonably feel aggrieved at being ripped off.


----------

