Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

IW/Anything Water Related-Warning in OP

Options
1…122123125127128…239

Comments

  • Options
    #3722
    Streetwalker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,906 ✭✭✭Streetwalker


    Hilarious reading people trying to justify the water scam. Bottom line is more than half the country aren't being fooled into paying it and IW fill fail. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.


  • Options
    #3723
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    Streetwalker wrote: »
    Hilarious reading people trying to justify the water scam. Bottom line is more than half the country aren't being fooled into paying it and IW fill fail. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    Not paying is not an option if we, as a society, want drinkable water delivered to our taps.

    Only the method of payment is up for debate.

    Everyone to pay or just PAYE workers.


  • Options
    #3724
    shinzon
    Registered Users Posts: 5,458 ✭✭✭shinzon


    and just to make clear I made no declaration saying the money would evaporate the money will still be used for what its being used for now which will include water because no one has still produced any evidence to the contrary, link me any document or anything that any minister has said differently.

    Making any assumption without fact is still just an assumption so as of now general taxation still pays for everything so yes you are paying twice for water

    and to reiterate for the thousandth time im in favour of a progressive taxation system whereby the further up the scale of wealth you go the more you pay and have not wavered in that since the start of this disaster and everyone pays what they can afford which would more then cover the infrastructure rather then paying for fat cat pensions and meters that are redundant for at least 4 to 5 years and may never be used as the whole situation is so toxic now that no government would touch it with a 10 foot pole

    Shin


  • Options
    #3725
    fergus1001
    Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭fergus1001


    Daith wrote: »
    And again any funding from the property charge (if any) to water infrastructure would stop. That's once.

    What do you mean stop it never started all that money went to some bank account in Switzerland

    We were lied too

    Just like we are now

    When the cap comes off the water charge you will know all about it


  • Options
    #3726
    Grandpa Hassan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭Grandpa Hassan


    Barely There wrote: »
    Not paying is not an option if we, as a society, want drinkable water delivered to our taps.

    Only the method of payment is up for debate.

    Everyone to pay or just PAYE workers.

    I agree. I am in the 'everyone to pay' camp. The anti water charge protesters are in the 'PAYE workers to pay' camp.

    And thats pretty much all there is to it with respect to the concept of water charges


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3727
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,934 ✭✭✭Daith


    shinzon wrote: »
    and to reiterate for the thousandth time im in favour of a progressive taxation system whereby the further up the scale of wealth you go the more you pay and have not wavered in that since the start of this disaster and everyone pays what they can afford
    Shin


    And all I hear from you is that you want inequality whereby people who earn more for some reason pay more for water and people with a well/group scheme pay twice and some pay nothing at all.


  • Options
    #3728
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Barely There wrote: »
    Sounds like someone has a vested interest in making sure other people keep paying for their water.

    Sounds like someone's making unfounded insinuations.


  • Options
    #3729
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    shinzon wrote: »

    and to reiterate for the thousandth time im in favour of a progressive taxation system whereby the further up the scale of wealth you go the more you pay

    I think you're more in the "I'd like other people to pay for my water" camp myself.


  • Options
    #3730
    gladrags
    Registered Users Posts: 6,028 ✭✭✭gladrags


    Barely There wrote: »
    Not paying is not an option if we, as a society, want drinkable water delivered to our taps.

    Only the method of payment is up for debate.

    Everyone to pay or just PAYE workers.

    The banks are an option.

    And the wider financial sector could also be levied, or contribute.

    Such as insurance companies,who make obnxious profits.

    There are a lot of options,other than the taxpayer.


  • Options
    #3731
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    gladrags wrote: »
    The banks are an option.

    And the wider financial sector could also be levied, or contribute.

    Such as insurance companies,who make obnxious profits.

    There are a lot of options,other than the taxpayer.


    Ahh - it's the 'why can't someone else pay for it' argument so beloved of the Shinners and the other Looney Left Parties


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3732
    Valetta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,611 ✭✭✭Valetta


    gladrags wrote: »
    The banks are an option.

    And the wider financial sector could also be levied, or contribute.

    Such as insurance companies,who make obnxious profits.

    There are a lot of options,other than the taxpayer.

    The banks pay taxes and levies.

    Insurance companies pay taxes and levies. How much profits do they make, exactly?

    What do you mean by "the wider financial sector"?- and what makes you think they don't already pay taxes?


  • Options
    #3733
    shinzon
    Registered Users Posts: 5,458 ✭✭✭shinzon


    Daith wrote: »
    And all I hear from you is that you want inequality whereby people who earn more for some reason pay more for water and people with a well/group scheme pay twice and some pay nothing at all.

    That's grand so at least you missed the point entirely progressive taxation means the ability to pay not some pie in the sky scheme which leaves more people in poverty unable to pay hows that contributing to your everyone pays mantra, what your basically saying is whats mine is mine and **** you if your poor you need to pay as much as im paying and sure if you go hungry or are unable to pay other bills so be it is that what your actually saying, you want to drive people into poverty over some twisted version of inequality.

    As much as you want to sweep it under the carpet there is people who simply cannot afford to pay this bill at the end of the month when everything else is paid but again **** em right.

    And queue the give up this that and the other brigade and round and round we go at this stage every knows where it will stop.

    Shin


  • Options
    #3734
    shinzon
    Registered Users Posts: 5,458 ✭✭✭shinzon


    Barely There wrote: »
    I think you're more in the "I'd like other people to pay for my water" camp myself.

    and again how wrong you are, how is the ability to pay and everyone contributes what they can afford in that camp as you say.

    trolling much

    Shin


  • Options
    #3735
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,934 ✭✭✭Daith


    shinzon wrote: »
    As much as you want to sweep it under the carpet there is people who simply cannot afford to pay this bill at the end of the month when everything else is paid but again **** em right.

    Shin

    Dress it up anyway you want. You're arguing for an unequal scheme whereby somebody pays more for water because of how much they earn.


  • Options
    #3736
    keithclancy
    Registered Users Posts: 9,222 ✭✭✭keithclancy


    shinzon wrote: »
    That's grand so at least you missed the point entirely progressive taxation means the ability to pay not some pie in the sky scheme which leaves more people in poverty unable to pay hows that contributing to your everyone pays mantra, what your basically saying is whats mine is mine and **** you if your poor you need to pay as much as im paying and sure if you go hungry or are unable to pay other bills so be it is that what your actually saying, you want to drive people into poverty over some twisted version of inequality.

    As much as you want to sweep it under the carpet there is people who simply cannot afford to pay this bill at the end of the month when everything else is paid but again **** em right.

    And queue the give up this that and the other brigade and round and round we go at this stage every knows where it will stop.

    Shin

    I think everyone wants to support people who are in need/without work.

    Your argument is a strawman one and you are just itching for someone to say they could cancel their Sky Subscription.


  • Options
    #3737
    shinzon
    Registered Users Posts: 5,458 ✭✭✭shinzon


    Daith wrote: »
    Dress it up anyway you want. You're arguing for an unequal scheme whereby somebody pays more for water because of how much they earn.

    And everyone pays what they can afford, its not inequality when your protecting the most vulnerable but there still paying jesus you have some warped sense of logic that's all ill say

    you bitch saying some sections don't pay for water, I propose a scheme where everyone contributes based on your ability to pay where everyone pays and you still bitch desperate much

    You still haven't answered the question are you prepared to say right now that you want people to go into poverty just so they can pay the same rate as you simple yes or no, don't deflect quote other parts of my post are you that selfish that that's what you want to happen

    yes or no

    Shin


  • Options
    #3738
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,531 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Will Paul Murphy and his fellow travellers condemn the putting of human excrement in to form envelopes?


    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/irish-water-crisis/suspected-human-excrement-mailed-with-irish-water-registration-form-30778854.html


  • Options
    #3739
    shinzon
    Registered Users Posts: 5,458 ✭✭✭shinzon


    keithclancy wrote: »
    Your argument is a strawman one and you are just itching for someone to say they could cancel their Sky Subscription.

    that's already been said several times across the 3 threads tbh along with UPC if I remember correctly

    Shin


  • Options
    #3740
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,934 ✭✭✭Daith


    shinzon wrote: »
    You still haven't answered the question are you prepared top say right now that you want people to go into poverty just so they can pay the same rate as you simple yes or no, don't deflect quote other parts of my post are you that selfish that that's what you want to happen

    yes or no

    Shin

    Why are they paying the same rate as me? Oh they don't want meters.


  • Options
    #3741
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Will Paul Murphy and his fellow travellers condemn the putting of human excrement in to form envelopes?


    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/irish-water-crisis/suspected-human-excrement-mailed-with-irish-water-registration-form-30778854.html


    Looks what happens when a communist opens their mouth.

    Sh*t comes out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3742
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    Valetta wrote: »
    The banks pay taxes and levies.

    Insurance companies pay taxes and levies. How much profits do they make, exactly?

    What do you mean by "the wider financial sector"?- and what makes you think they don't already pay taxes?

    Without any stats of water consumption by sector, It's a case of households potentially paying for water used by the whole agri and industrial/commercial sectors.

    The collective E200 million looks small, in the scheme of things.

    Much noise is made by ministers of the need to be able to ensure that quality water supplies are available to attract new industrial investment.

    No mention yet of anyone but domestic users paying for it.


  • Options
    #3743
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    gladrags wrote: »
    Such as insurance companies,who make obnxious profits.

    Who will then offset this via increased premiums...


  • Options
    #3744
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Going Forward wrote: »
    Without any stats of water consumption by sector, It's a case of households potentially paying for water used by the whole agri and industrial/commercial sectors.

    The collective E200 million looks small, in the scheme of things.

    Much noise is made by ministers of the need to be able to ensure that quality water supplies are available to attract new industrial investment.

    No mention yet of anyone but domestic users paying for it.

    Not sure what your point is, but non domestic users already pay...


  • Options
    #3745
    shinzon
    Registered Users Posts: 5,458 ✭✭✭shinzon


    Daith wrote: »
    Why are they paying the same rate as me? Oh they don't want meters.

    yup still wont answer the question I asked for a yes or no and you still wont answer it so unless you do then im assuming (see what I did there) that you do want people to go into poverty to pay the same rate as you

    Shin


  • Options
    #3746
    keithclancy
    Registered Users Posts: 9,222 ✭✭✭keithclancy


    shinzon wrote: »
    that's already been said several times across the 3 threads tbh along with UPC if I remember correctly

    Shin

    Can you then explain why people in other countries where water usage is payed for out of your Social Welfare are able to survive ?

    Or even in certain cases where you pay your mandatory health insurance contributions out of your social welfare ?

    People are muddying social responsibility with being able to account for direct costs.

    The direct cost model is better because you see exactly what you pay for.

    The common argument in Ireland was that other countries had better services and the money you paid you could see directly where it went.

    It's the job of Social Welfare system to support people out of work to pay the cost to live, it's not for the government to massage the cost to live to suit the Social Welfare system.


  • Options
    #3747
    Valetta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,611 ✭✭✭Valetta


    Going Forward wrote: »
    Without any stats of water consumption by sector, It's a case of households potentially paying for water used by the whole agri and industrial/commercial sectors.

    The collective E200 million looks small, in the scheme of things.

    Much noise is made by ministers of the need to be able to ensure that quality water supplies are available to attract new industrial investment.

    No mention yet of anyone but domestic users paying for it.

    Businesses already pay water rates, as well as commercial rates.


  • Options
    #3748
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,843 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Will Paul Murphy and his fellow travellers condemn the putting of human excrement in to form envelopes?


    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/irish-water-crisis/suspected-human-excrement-mailed-with-irish-water-registration-form-30778854.html


    You can be absolutely sure he would.

    Its just a pity they didnt CC Alan Kelly. And Phil Hogan...


  • Options
    #3749
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    hju6 wrote: »
    So one person throwing a brick after all the peaceful protesters have gone, does not constitute a riot, nor make the brick thrower a rioter, as misreported by the press
    falan wrote: »
    It still wasn't a riot. The man who threw the brick should be done for trying to incite a riot. Take him out of the picture and all you have is civil disobedience.

    Why do you keep talking about the brick guy? I'm talking about the incident where a woman was imprisoned in her car against her will, her staff were assaulted, Gardaí were assaulted and robbed and almost every offence under the public order act was breached. The brick guy is irrelevant to that.


  • Options
    #3750
    shinzon
    Registered Users Posts: 5,458 ✭✭✭shinzon


    keithclancy wrote: »
    Can you then explain why people in other countries where water usage is payed for out of your Social Welfare are able to survive ?

    Or even in certain cases where you pay your mandatory health insurance contributions out of your social welfare ?

    People are muddying social responsibility with being able to account for direct costs.

    The direct cost model is better because you see exactly what you pay for.

    The common argument in Ireland was that other countries had better services and the money you paid you could see directly where it went.

    It's the job of Social Welfare system to support people out of work to pay the cost to live, it's not for the government to massage the cost to live to suit the Social Welfare system.


    Im not talking about other countries im talking about here where commensurately everything is more expensive and where report after report has homelessness and people not having money to survive at the end of the month after paying all the bills they already have nevermind the water charge on top of that

    Shin


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3751
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    shinzon wrote: »
    Im not talking about other countries im talking about here where commensurately everything is more expensive and where report after report has homelessness and people not having money to survive at the end of the month after paying all the bills they already nevermind the water charge on top of that

    Shin
    Why would a homeless person be liable for water charges?

    Sounds like another strawman.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement