The Uninhabitable Ireland (1 Viewer)

hermie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2003
Threads
110
Messages
6,239
Location
blemmer
Website
Visit site
Sure it wasn't that long ago Jeremy Irons et al just barely kept the government from selling off Coillte forests. Policy on this matter is an absolute disgrace.
 

Lili Marlene

Wanna Get Out
Supporter
Contributor
Joined
Oct 14, 2002
Threads
288
Messages
25,324
Location
Way beyond the Rubicon

IFF

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
May 19, 2002
Threads
83
Messages
2,924
Location
a place between somewhere and nowhere
Ireland, just forests grown to cut down and sell the wood
And for this, the farmers (most of this is farmers) involved get the forestry premiums from department of agriculture and they only pay USC and Prsi (if under 65) on the income from it so Max tax is 12%. In 2016, the government took it out of the high earner income restriction (which meant it might have been restricted the tax exemption but not any more).

As well, the land is planted with the use of grants from department of agriculture.

On top of it, the forest part qualifies for agricultural relief even if the person getting the gift does not reach the other qualifications for it meaning that if a person inherited forestry of €1,000,000 less 90% meaning taxable gift of €100,000 and tax on gift of €33,000.

Basically forestry is just a tax shelter for wealthy people and it is all about the cycle - plant with grants, grow, sell the wood and repeat.
 

Unicron

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
May 21, 2003
Threads
311
Messages
16,012
Location
Near Cybertron
Website
theformersovietreublic.bandcamp.com
I am going to ask what might be a stupid question ...

This "you should stop flying" thing. I am a big enough dude, 107 kg but an airbus A320 is about 83,000kg. When someone says "you should stop flying" is it because of the additional fuel required to get my 107kg off the ground, through the air and back down (plus coming back) is a bad amount of fuel to be burned, even though it's a fractional amount of the fuel required to get the 83,000kg thing I'm sitting in to do the trip, or are they actually saying "you, and loads of other people should stop flying because then fewer flights requiring the fuel to make an 83,000kg machine go up in the air, stay there for a few hours and then come back down again would happen?"
 

ann post

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2002
Threads
368
Messages
19,717
Location
Internment Explorer sp3
I am going to ask what might be a stupid question ...

This "you should stop flying" thing. I am a big enough dude, 107 kg but an airbus A320 is about 83,000kg. When someone says "you should stop flying" is it because of the additional fuel required to get my 107kg off the ground, through the air and back down (plus coming back) is a bad amount of fuel to be burned, even though it's a fractional amount of the fuel required to get the 83,000kg thing I'm sitting in to do the trip, or are they actually saying "you, and loads of other people should stop flying because then fewer flights requiring the fuel to make an 83,000kg machine go up in the air, stay there for a few hours and then come back down again would happen?"
I would say its a combination of both but mostly the latter. The transition of flights from 'needs' to 'wants'* and the idea that they are a readily available product is basically insanity. Obviously it is very lucrative insanity so aer lingus aren't exactly going to turn round and just say they are going to reduce their charter by 80% voluntarily in a mutual peaceful agreement with all the other airlines so the only viable option is to ask people nicely not to bother.

*says me, who flew to the netherlands last week for fun.
 

ann post

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2002
Threads
368
Messages
19,717
Location
Internment Explorer sp3
On the weight thing, like there probably is something in that. If you want to go full on problematic kafka on it, having a weight restriction on people flying to say 60kg (small person) instead of 75kg (me) would be a 5% reduction in weight for the whole plane. I'm sure ryanair have had many board meetings about it.
 

Lili Marlene

Wanna Get Out
Supporter
Contributor
Joined
Oct 14, 2002
Threads
288
Messages
25,324
Location
Way beyond the Rubicon
I don't buy the "you should stop flying" argument, the military should stop flying - yes, private jets for millionaires and billionaires should not exist, yes, but the rest...

Maybe there's an argument to tax them more but I'd say the net good from seeing that the rest of the world exists outweighs the rest.
 

ann post

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2002
Threads
368
Messages
19,717
Location
Internment Explorer sp3
I don't buy the "you should stop flying" argument, the military should stop flying - yes, private jets for millionaires and billionaires should not exist, yes, but the rest...

Maybe there's an argument to tax them more but I'd say the net good from seeing that the rest of the world exists outweighs the rest.
I've a notion they dont pay tax on fuel at all. I kind agree with you but I'm not sure if its my sense of logic or my inner gap year speaking.
 

Unicron

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
May 21, 2003
Threads
311
Messages
16,012
Location
Near Cybertron
Website
theformersovietreublic.bandcamp.com
It seems to me that planes burning fossil fuels will be one of the last things to be phased out as (if) we try to move away from the internal combustion engine, I've never heard a word about the idea of an electric plane.

Perhaps superfast trains will solve some of the too many planes issue. Not for this country unless we start building massive bridges or tunnels, but on large land masses.
 

ann post

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2002
Threads
368
Messages
19,717
Location
Internment Explorer sp3
I've never heard a word about the idea of an electric plane.
I watched a video where a guy broke down the current capabilities of batteries in planes, he figured that considering weight and take off, a generic, like 737 or something would run 15 minutes on batteries at their current weight. smaller ones like 8 seaters could run an hour or two on the current tech.
 

hermie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2003
Threads
110
Messages
6,239
Location
blemmer
Website
Visit site
Doesn't the elevation of planes make them so much worse? I'm not sure of the exact science but I guess none of the emissions get absorbed by trees or the thicker atmosphere down on the ground.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create a thumped.com account. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

We're listening to...

  • Change
    Memory
    Cindy Wilson
    Change

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads... If we had any... Which we don't right now.

Upgrade now

Latest posts

Trending Threads

Latest threads

Top