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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Water - where do you stand?
Comments
-
Tired of this argument. "I pay for my well and I subsidise other peoples water". Boo hoo. Doesn't Dublin tax money subsidise rural communities in general? Tell you what; you can whinge about subsidising piped water when your county pays for itself.
Lots of houses in Dublin off the public system too. There's 12,000 households with septic tanks across the Dublin local authorities. No love for them either?0 -
I disagree. Consumption taxes on basic necessities are by nature regressive. I doubt there's any major difference between the basic amount of water needed to sustain someone in the lowest tax bracket and those in the highest. A basic component of a "fair" tax is that is distributes the tax burden in such a way that those who can afford to pay most do so.I don't agree it would be fair. Consumption taxes make sense when it comes to common resources, and they are fairer.
Of course money is a powerful incentive, no disagreement there. But there has to be a strong rationale for the deployment of this deterrent. As you say, plastic bags were choking Irish towns and so a small charge was introduced on this non-essential and reusable item. In contrast, not only is the water charge much heavier and unavoidable (who doesn't use water?) but it's tackling a non-existent problem. It's trying to get people to conserve a renewable resource that we have in abundance; that's like suggesting a tax to get people to breathe less.Money tends to have much more of an effect on peoples behaviour than public awareness. Look at the plastic bag tax. I remember as a kid seeing my neighbourhood with plastic bags dumped everywhere. Never see that anymore... all that for the charge of 22 cent.
So I've no problem with the state launching a small ad campaign to remind people that conservation is generally a good principle. But whacking people with a hefty tax to conserve the one thing we don't particularly need to conserve?
You're conflating two different things here: reducing the demand for water (ie by encouraging a less consumption) and minimising the operational loss of water in the system. These are independent of each other – reducing consumption will have no impact on leaking pipes and vice versa.I think what you mean to say is that Ireland does not have a water *supply* problem. We do have a water conservation problem, with much of the water lost in transit between resevoir and your home. Let alone the wastage in the home. Metering and charging makes sense to identify where the leaks are to and to incentivise water conservation.
Even then, such is our abundance of water that neither of these threatens a shortage of water. There's an operational cost attached to water lost in transit (and I'm all for addressing that through modernisation) but metering will be of marginal use in identifying leaks and charging none.
Frankly I think it's a disgrace that these schemes have to exist at all. Generally they plug gaps in the national water network – something that's the product of local authority incompetence. The biggest tragedy of this whole affair is that the government has taken a very real issue (the poor management and provision of water in Ireland) and used it as a smokescreen for an additional tax and feed trough, neither of which will actually improve Irish water management.TCDStudent1 wrote:In that case, do you think it is fair that people who already pay for water (i.e. in group water schemes / private wells) pay taxes that go to providing free water to others?
But, to directly address your point, I have no time for this selfish 'well I don't use it' mentality when it comes to taxes. Paying these is part of your duty as a citizen. Complaining about how tax revenue is being wasted is fine, suggesting that you should be able to opt-out altogether is absolutely wrong. It doesn't matter if someone has private well/healthcare/gun/whatever, you're still expected to contribute to the national accounts.0 -
Reekwind wrote:the government has taken a very real issue (the poor management and provision of water in Ireland) and used it as a smokescreen for an additional tax and feed trough,Paying these is part of your duty as a citizen. Complaining about how tax revenue is being wasted is fine, suggesting that you should be able to opt-out altogether is absolutely wrong...... you're still expected to contribute to the national accounts.
So why are you against spreading the cost of the fairly expensive process of water treatment & distribution amongst a larger number of citizens?
It seems you acknowledge the status quo has problems but are outraged at the attempted solution before its had a chance to start.0 -
But, to directly address your point, I have no time for this selfish 'well I don't use it' mentality when it comes to taxes. Paying these is part of your duty as a citizen. Complaining about how tax revenue is being wasted is fine, suggesting that you should be able to opt-out altogether is absolutely wrong. It doesn't matter if someone has private well/healthcare/gun/whatever, you're still expected to contribute to the national accounts.
Of course everyone should have to contribute to taxation revenue, but where a citizen isn't going to benefit from a service, not on the basis of preference or need, but on the basis of lack of access, then the user-pays model is clearly better suited. Everyone will, or has the potential, to benefit from health services, child benefit, social welfare, etc. It might not be today or tomorrow, but the citizen has the implicit benefit of those services. Public water or water waste services however, are not available to a significant portion of the population however, and never will be - at least a half million households. That would put water services in the same category as cars, or guns, or LPT - it's a service cost that should be measured by the benefit to the citizen.0 -
Have any of these bankers and property developers who flushed the country down the jax been spotted at these water tax protests?
Just wondering?0 -
Of course everyone should have to contribute to taxation revenue, but where a citizen isn't going to benefit from a service, not on the basis of preference or need, but on the basis of lack of access, then the user-pays model is clearly better suited. Everyone will, or has the potential, to benefit from health services, child benefit, social welfare, etc. It might not be today or tomorrow, but the citizen has the implicit benefit of those services. Public water or water waste services however, are not available to a significant portion of the population however, and never will be - at least a half million households. That would put water services in the same category as cars, or guns, or LPT - it's a service cost that should be measured by the benefit to the citizen.
Everyone benefits from the public water system to a greater or lessor extent .. kids go to school .. where does the water in the school come from .. people use public facilities, libraries, hospitals, parks, - where does the water come from? While there is an argument that individual should pay a charge relating to the non-capital cost of producing a clean water supply, the public water infrastructure is a public good that should be subsidised by the taxpayer.
By the way I have a private well so not being blinded by my own self interest here. In that regard I always had to smile when I heard people living in the ground floor of the apartment blocks I used to live in complaining that they didn't want to pay for the cost of the lift in the building .. simple solution .. move out!0 -
Schools pay commercial water charges.Everyone benefits from the public water system to a greater or lessor extent .. kids go to school .. where does the water in the school come from
They all pay commercial water charges too. Not domestic water charges... people use public facilities, libraries, hospitals, parks, - where does the water come from?
It would be, but just like the road infrastructure is supported by all, with additional contributions by motorists, the same logic would apply with water service usage.While there is an argument that individual should pay a charge relating to the non-capital cost of producing a clean water supply, the public water infrastructure is a public good that should be subsidised by the taxpayer.
A half million households don't have any reasonable ability to move.By the way I have a private well so not being blinded by my own self interest here. In that regard I always had to smile when I heard people living in the ground floor of the apartment blocks I used to live in complaining that they didn't want to pay for the cost of the lift in the building .. simple solution .. move out!0 -
Lots of houses in Dublin off the public system too. There's 12,000 households with septic tanks across the Dublin local authorities. No love for them either?
If they choose to live in an area with no piped water, or public sewerage, due to the distance they are located from these services, then I say those 20,000 have chosen to and should be expected to burden those costs. The tax payers should not have to burden the cost of rural dwellers for choosing to live in rural places, even if the address is in Dublin. My point, as you are well aware Alastair, is that Dublin city/suburban dwellers heavily subsidise rural dwellers and it is a weak argument for those with their own wells and septic tanks to complain about their income tax going into the public water system, which, as has been pointed out already, they likely benefit from.Of course everyone should have to contribute to taxation revenue, but where a citizen isn't going to benefit from a service, not on the basis of preference or need, but on the basis of lack of access, then the user-pays model is clearly better suited. Everyone will, or has the potential, to benefit from health services, child benefit, social welfare, etc. It might not be today or tomorrow, but the citizen has the implicit benefit of those services. Public water or water waste services however, are not available to a significant portion of the population however, and never will be - at least a half million households. That would put water services in the same category as cars, or guns, or LPT - it's a service cost that should be measured by the benefit to the citizen.
They could move to a place that they would benefit from such service. I have seen it mentioned that you suggested this in another topic before, for people to avail of certain things, (though I cannot verify its accuracy).
I would love to live in a place, where I had to pay for my own well and septic tank. But yokel laws stopped me from buying a modest half acre of land on the Dublin/Meath border (and other rural and semi-rural locations) where I wanted to build a house for my family to live in. If i wanted to live outsde of suburbia, I was told I had to buy an already built house, which was not what I wanted and not where I wanted either. Yokel needs seriously need to be changed, but that's OT.0 -
It would be, but just like the road infrastructure is supported by all, with additional contributions by motorists, the same logic would apply with water service usage.
Given your unflaffable support for IW and metered charges to cover the current and capital cost of the public water system will your next campaign be to support pay per usage on all Irish roads? Why should non-car users support the development and maintrenance of roads? Its a shocking situation really.
Is there any company out there in serious debt that could be purchased at a knock down price to install pay as you go systems on the roads .. if not then no real incentive to go down that road at present0 -
Personally, I think it would be better to have Irish Water privitised and bring some professionalism into it.
I have no objection to the idea of water charges
I have no objection to the idea of water as a commodity
I understand we're not paying for water, we're paying for the treatment of water to make it drinkable
I object to paying a monopoly that has no interest in providing a quality service in any facet of the company
I object to the ridiculous rates per litre they've set
I object to Irish Water having no focus on conservation, only profit making, to the point where they've actually hindered people trying to conserve water
I object to receiving an unnecessary 20 page application pack
I object to handing them over personal details that they openly state will be treated as a sellable asset
I object to the obvious corruption and nepotism that has occurred in the set up of the company
I object to being threatened and being treated like a fool by Enda Kenny and his cheerleaders
If they had shown any interest in improving our water service, these protests never would have happened. The only thing Irish Water want to do is install meters and start billing. Issues like crypto outbreaks and ongoing boil notices have been brushed under the carpet. Leaky pipes and wastage have been ignored.
No private company would get away with behaving like they have. The company would go under in months. Irish Water think they've been handed a captive audience so they can behave as poorly as they want and we'll have to pay them anyway.
These protests have shown that they can't do that. If they want to bill people, they need to start acting like a professional business, not a collection of cloistered civil servants who can't be bothered answering phones0 -
Advertisement
-
Given your unflaffable support for IW and metered charges to cover the current and capital cost of the public water system will your next campaign be to support pay per usage on all Irish roads? Why should non-car users support the development and maintrenance of roads? Its a shocking situation really.
Ehh, my point was that motor tax is a user-pays system.0 -
The_Captain wrote: »
No private company would get away with behaving like they have. The company would go under in months. Irish Water think they've been handed a captive audience so they can behave as poorly as they want and we'll have to pay them anyway.
See RTE.
The mouthpiece.......0 -
Why should non-car users support the development and maintrenance of roads? Its a shocking situation really.
You will be happy hear that the motorist pays far far more into the exchequer than is spent on roads
(By a ratio of about 9:1)
Non drivers don't support road building.Is there any company out there in serious debt that could be purchased at a knock down price to install pay as you go systems on the roads
BAM contracting perhaps?0 -
If they choose to live in an area with no piped water, or public sewerage, due to the distance they are located from these services, then I say those 20,000 have chosen to and should be expected to burden those costs. The tax payers should not have to burden the cost of rural dwellers for choosing to live in rural places, even if the address is in Dublin. My point, as you are well aware Alastair, is that Dublin city/suburban dwellers heavily subsidise rural dwellers and it is a weak argument for those with their own wells and septic tanks to complain about their income tax going into the public water system, which, as has been pointed out already, they likely benefit from.
The only cross-subsidy that you can point to with regard to the urban-rural divide, relates to rural services that are available to urban taxpayers too. Complaining about the higher costs of running roads etc through sparsely populated areas is all well and good, until you need to get from A to C, despite not living in B. Again, the distinction is not one of preference for, or need to access, but of inability to access those services.0 -
BoJack Horseman wrote: »Non drivers don't support road building.
Well - they do, but not to the same degree that motorists do. Just as would be the case with water charges.0 -
-
Ehh, my point was that motor tax is a user-pays system.
It not a metered system though .. its a simple flat charge albeit based on a flawed CO2 emitting system. This approach doesn't need a IW debacle to run yet raises revenues that IW would drool over. I wonder if the brains at IW and the consultants hired to advise of billing systems considerd this option?0 -
BoJack Horseman wrote: »You will be happy hear that the motorist pays far far more into the exchequer than is spent on roads
(By a ratio of about 9:1)
Non drivers don't support road building.
BAM contracting perhaps?
Motor Tax and VRT are 2 different taxes .. VRT is simply a tax that the Govt can get away with levying on people buying cars and goes straight into the general pot .. it is not used to fund roads just as VAT on car purchases/repairs etc does not fund roads.
Is BAM heavily indebted and under NAMA's wing .. if so its ripe for picking!0 -
It not a metered system though .. its a simple flat charge albeit based on a flawed CO2 emitting system. This approach doesn't need a IW debacle to run yet raises revenues that IW would drool over. I wonder if the brains at IW and the consultants hired to advise of billing systems considerd this option?
Motor tax is not, as you concede, a flat rate system. The 'meter' system applicable to motor tax has been based on CO2 emissions, combined with the excise from fuel used - so, the more you drive, the more you pay.0 -
Advertisement
-
Motor tax is not, as you concede, a flat rate system. The 'meter' system applicable to motor tax has been based on CO2 emissions, combined with the excise from fuel used - so, the more you drive, the more you pay.
Of course its a flat rate -whether I drive 1km or 100,000km in the year I pay the same rate .. how is that not a flat rate?? On the other hand of course I also pay CO2 taxes on my fuel which is based on consumption, i.e. that is the pay per use tax linked to CO2 not the motor tax which of couse, just like the IW charges, uses the excuse of saving the planet for justifying extracting even more taxes from the general public.0 -
If I can quote Ian Paisley "NEVER,,, NEVER,,,, NEVER"
Earlier this year maybe but not now, I coped on its all a big con0 -
When I saw Brendan Ogle, the man who destroyed rail freight on Irish Rail, with the Right 2 Water campaign, and folks on my facebook feed sharing stuff from disso Republican groups, it goes to show what sort of people are waiting in the wings to gain political capital out of this.
Let's be careful what we wish for, unless we get an Ireland that deems everyone earning over €35,000 or owning any property, no matter how indebted it is, "The Rich"0 -
Honestly Banjoxed I do not give a monkeys right now about any politician.
An Garda should not be put in this position like this, and the citizens should not be put in this position either.
Someone is going to get killed either by anger, defence or accident.
To the powers that be, can you please stop addressing the symptoms and address the cause, you must stop this now, it can not work and it will not now work in any shape or form.
Can you please shut it down now totally altogether. come back to in the future.
And please don't mention how much you have spent on it so far it only angers people, neither the citizens or the Garda gave you the ok to hand over property tax money, you decided that yourselves.0 -
-
dave ireland wrote: »Honestly Banjoxed I do not give a monkeys right now about any politician.
An Garda should not be put in this position like this, and the citizens should not be put in this position either.
Someone is going to get killed either by anger, defence or accident.
Jesus. That's where I stopped reading. I don't support Irish Water but holy crap..0 -
Advertisement
-
Some of the so called protesting is just a bunch of thugs with mob activity on their mind. I am flummoxed at the criticism the Gardai are receiving. They are doing their job. Upholding the law. If they did nothing this situation would result in anarchy.0
-
Some of the so called protesting is just a bunch of thugs with mob activity on their mind. I am flummoxed at the criticism the Gardai are receiving. They are doing their job. Upholding the law. If they did nothing this situation would result in anarchy.
The Garda are receiving no criticism from me, I will say it again, some one will get hurt or killed. I have been around long enough to know when something has failed and this water thing has most definitely failed and there is no point in putting Garda or people in any situation the may lead to confrontation or accidents.0 -
dave ireland wrote: »The Garda are receiving no criticism from me, I will say it again, some one will get hurt or killed. I have been around long enough to know when something has failed and this water thing has most definitely failed and there is no point in putting Garda or people in any situation the may lead to confrontation or accidents.
Absolutely. The latest FB video doing the rds showed a mob that I am certain would have attacked Kenny and possibly killed the man had the Gardai not been there. It's sickening to think that we have people in our society capable of this.
Most of the videos I am seeing is of the aggressive and threatening variety. Deliberate provoking and jostling. Then the Gardai are getting slated for using reasonable force, which any force would have to use. The Gardai aren't to know who in a mob is a potential menace. They are on extreme high alert and under a lot of physical and mental pressure.
I have no issue with protesting, but some of these protests are just acts of thuggery!0 -
Some of the so called protesting is just a bunch of thugs with mob activity on their mind. I am flummoxed at the criticism the Gardai are receiving. They are doing their job. Upholding the law. If they did nothing this situation would result in anarchy.
Seriously, anyone like that doesn't need to go out protesting and to my mind anyone like that wouldn't be arsed protesting and would hardly be politically active.
I more keep an eye on the legal government driven suicides and manslaughter via hospital waiting list and trolley, but let's not sully the conversation with that.0 -
Absolutely. The latest FB video doing the rds showed a mob that I am certain would have attacked Kenny and possibly killed the man had the Gardai not been there. It's sickening to think that we have people in our society capable of this.
Most of the videos I am seeing is of the aggressive and threatening variety. Deliberate provoking and jostling. Then the Gardai are getting slated for using reasonable force, which any force would have to use. The Gardai aren't to know who in a mob is a potential menace. They are on extreme high alert and under a lot of physical and mental pressure.
I have no issue with protesting, but some of these protests are just acts of thuggery!
Yes,, we are intelligent,, videos with a mobile phone camera up to a Garda,s face clearly shown aggression, even with the commentary saying ""Ahh Jayes Guard there is no need to be so rough"" are very easily seen through.
The water charge is gone it can not now work, put an end to what has people so angry over (the cause) and let us return to normal and sort it out in 2016.0 -
Advertisement
-
dave ireland wrote: »Yes,, we are intelligent,, videos with a mobile phone camera up to a Garda,s face clearly shown aggression, even with the commentary saying ""Ahh Jayes Guard there is no need to be so rough"" are very easily seen through.
The water charge is gone it can not now work, put an end to what has people so angry over (the cause) and let us return to normal and sort it out in 2016.
Why not do it now, it's already done for the most part. IW set up, IW packages being sent out, meters being installed, etc. You'll have the same protests in 2016 when it comes up again and you'll have someone else saying to leave it till 2018.0 -
Why not do it now, it's already done for the most part. IW set up, IW packages being sent out, meters being installed, etc. You'll have the same protests in 2016 when it comes up again and you'll have someone else saying to leave it till 2018.
No we will not, I speak for myself and I will never accept IW and I will not now believe anything that this government says. I will not accept guarantees, promises or anything from them. I will pay water charges when its in the interest of people and water supply and not in the interest of a bunch of con men,,,,0 -
If as the minister indicated at the weekend on radio that studies show 40% of household drinking quality water is used for flushing toilets and that also equates to the 40% of water lost through leaking pipes, then why is there not an incentive scheme in place to harvest rainwater for flushing systems.
Simple answer, because it was never about conservation! It was all and is all about the deal the government is content in honouring to EU and IMF!0 -
Of course its a flat rate -whether I drive 1km or 100,000km in the year I pay the same rate .. how is that not a flat rate?? On the other hand of course I also pay CO2 taxes on my fuel which is based on consumption, i.e. that is the pay per use tax linked to CO2 not the motor tax which of couse, just like the IW charges, uses the excuse of saving the planet for justifying extracting even more taxes from the general public.
Change your car for a larger/smaller engined car, and see how flat motor tax is.0 -
dave ireland wrote: »No we will not, I speak for myself and I will never accept IW and I will not now believe anything that this government says. I will not accept guarantees, promises or anything from them. I will pay water charges when its in the interest of people and water supply and not in the interest of a bunch of con men,,,,
And yet you're suggesting that the issue is "postponed to 2016"? Seems more than a bit disingenuous.0 -
And yet you're suggesting that the issue is "postponed to 2016"? Seems more than a bit disingenuous.
The present government must accept that this water thing can not work, there is too much going on with it. To keep hacking at it is not doing them any good and is making a lot of people very angry.
With this been stopped now this government will loose no more support and Sinn Fein will gain no more support. The people will return to normal, what damage has been done is done.
There is a huge amount of people against this water thing with only a fue radicals.
All governments have a duty to the public and by allowing this to carry on is putting the public in danger. It is driving an un necessary gap between Garda & public and government & public.
They cannot ram this down the throat of Joe public, they may get it down our neck but it will come back up ugly and hated
Garda & government are now talking tactics and more support, this deals with the symptoms of the problem. the problem is the water charge, address the problem not the symptoms.
Someone is going to get hurt or killed , this is gunpowder with sparks every ware they must shut it down.0 -
dave ireland wrote: »The present government must accept that this water thing can not work, there is too much going on with it. To keep hacking at it is not doing them any good and is making a lot of people very angry.
With this been stopped now this government will loose no more support and Sinn Fein will gain no more support. The people will return to normal, what damage has been done is done.
There is a huge amount of people against this water thing with only a fue radicals.
All governments have a duty to the public and by allowing this to carry on is putting the public in danger. It is driving an un necessary gap between Garda & public and government & public.
They cannot ram this down the throat of Joe public, they may get it down our neck but it will come back up ugly and hated
Garda & government are now talking tactics and more support, this deals with the symptoms of the problem. the problem is the water charge, address the problem not the symptoms.
Someone is going to get hurt or killed , this is gunpowder with sparks every ware they must shut it down.
The government have a duty to govern, and an electoral mandate to introduce water charges. There's clearly a minority of the public who don't like the prospect of water charges, but governments don't have any obligation to govern on the basis of the opinions of a minority. They are quite clear that water charges will be introduced in January, and threats or dire warnings aren't going to change that reality. If there's consequences come the next general election, they've determined it's worth undertaking regardless.0 -
The government have a duty to govern, and an electoral mandate to introduce water charges. There's clearly a minority of the public who don't like the prospect of water charges, but governments don't have any obligation to govern on the basis of the opinions of a minority. They are quite clear that water charges will be introduced in January, and threats or dire warnings aren't going to change that reality. If there's consequences come the next general election, they've determined it's worth undertaking regardless.
You keep repeating this bullsh*t - Fine Gael did not get a majority - the LP campaigned specifically on opposing FGs proposal for water charges and used water charges as the big stick to win 33 seats.
The government has absolutely no mandate to impose water charges.
Furthermore - this is absolutely irrelevant - the recent elections in May's Euros and Locals and the recent by-elections demonstrate that the current government have - at best - the support of 25% of the electorate, with that number falling all the time.
It is a fallacy to suggest that political parties can promise to do X, Y and Z at election time - then do a deal with other parties to get the mercs and perks that is a mash-up of the worst elements of both - and then expect that, when it has been shown that they lied through their teeth they get a five year free run to wreck the living standards of 90% of the population.
Now - get off the bloody hobby-horse and realise that working class people have paid all they are going to pay for the gambling debts of the spivs and speculators that lined the pockets of FF and FG and are now showing the government that unless they back off, a mass movement of the working class will kick the living be-jaysus out of them over the next 12 months.0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »You keep repeating this bullsh*t - Fine Gael did not get a majority - the LP campaigned specifically on opposing FGs proposal for water charges and used water charges as the big stick to win 33 seats.
Who is the lead coalition party?
Other than the one granted to them by the electorate - who voted them into a position to form a government. I didn't vote for them - but I acknowledge that they have an electoral mandate to govern, being something of a fan of the democratic process.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »YThe government has absolutely no mandate to impose water charges.
How many seats do the government have? Until that majority is lost, then by-election results don't really factor into their mandate. Local elections have nothing to do with the government's mandate.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »YFurthermore - this is absolutely irrelevant - the recent elections in May's Euros and Locals and the recent by-elections demonstrate that the current government have - at best - the support of 25% of the electorate, with that number falling all the time.
A fallacy eh? If 90% of people's living standards have been wrecked in the last five years, how do you explain the growth in spending of late? A 10% of the population living the high life?Jolly Red Giant wrote: »YIt is a fallacy to suggest that political parties can promise to do X, Y and Z at election time - then do a deal with other parties to get the mercs and perks that is a mash-up of the worst elements of both - and then expect that, when it has been shown that they lied through their teeth they get a five year free run to wreck the living standards of 90% of the population.
Back to the 'speculators' eh? Despite the fact that the entire bank bailout amounts to 3% of our tax expenditure, and most of that has nothing to do with bond holders, speculators, or, eh, 'spivs'. Meanwhile the remaining 97% of our outgoings have to do with much more pedestrian concerns - like health, welfare and everyday public services. Your 'mass movement' is, as ever, so much guff. No-one wants your Trot fantasy.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »YNow - get off the bloody hobby-horse and realise that working class people have paid all they are going to pay for the gambling debts of the spivs and speculators that lined the pockets of FF and FG and are now showing the government that unless they back off, a mass movement of the working class will kick the living be-jaysus out of them over the next 12 months.0 -
Which has bugger-all to do with the issue.Who is the lead coalition party?
This is also a load of b*llocks - nobody sat down and worked out a system of using their vote to ensure FG and LP would end up in government - if the numbers hadn't panned out each of them would have hopped into bed with some other party to get the mercs and perks.Other than the one granted to them by the electorate - who voted them into a position to form a government. I didn't vote for them - but I acknowledge that they have an electoral mandate to govern, being something of a fan of the democratic process.
This government - and both parties - lied through their rear-end to get votes and then kicked them in the teeth.
Democracy is about doing what the majority want - FG and the LP are doing what the ECB/IMF/EU/Merkel/O'Brien want.
Yes indeed - the wonder of capitalist democracy - get lied to by the chancers in order to write a few numbers on a piece of paper once every five years and then get screwed for five years while you wait for an opportunity to kick back. I'll pass thanksHow many seats do the government have? Until that majority is lost, then by-election results don't really factor into their mandate. Local elections have nothing to do with the government's mandate.
You bet - according to the CSO the bottom 90% of the population have seen their living standards fall year on year since the crash in 2008 - the richest 10% have been creaming €billions off the top during the same time. The richest 300 people in the country increased their wealth by €7billion in the past year (the size of the budget deficit)A fallacy eh? If 90% of people's living standards have been wrecked in the last five years, how do you explain the growth in spending of late? A 10% of the population living the high life?
The budget deficit this year is €7billion and this year the government will pay €8billion in interest to the IMF/ECB.Back to the 'speculators' eh? Despite the fact that the entire bank bailout amounts to 3% of our tax expenditure, and most of that has nothing to do with bond holders, speculators, or, eh, 'spivs'. Meanwhile the remaining 97% of our outgoings have to do with much more pedestrian concerns - like health, welfare and everyday public services. Your 'mass movement' is, as ever, so much guff. No-one wants your Trot fantasy.
For the past 30 years the governments of the elites in this country have been handing €billions every year in tax breaks, tax avoidance schemes, tax amnesties, offshore accounts, tax exiles, double-Irish, bank bailouts etc.
Government current expenditure in 2013 is €51.5 billion of which €42.3 billion goes on health, welfare and education not the 97% you claim - right-wing hacks generally can't do sums either.
After all of this - working class people are on the move - the government we on the ropes. The days of the government bending people over and giving it to the 90% up the rear end are over. The only issue to be resolved is how big a kicking FG and LP are going to get and how much of an earthquake will impact on the current political system. The days of the two and a half parties divvying up the spoils of office are over.0 -
Advertisement
-
User should pay. Same as with electricity or telephone service.
Pretty simple stuff really.0 -
Typical b*ll**** - we are all 'consumers'User should pay. Same as with electricity or telephone service.
Pretty simple stuff really.
Well excuse me - when I get sick and end up in hospital I want to be treated as a patient - when my kids are in school I want them treated as students - when I have to flush the toilet I don't want to be lining the pocket of Denis O'Brien or some spiv running a hedge fund.0 -
Yes this is. A capitalist country - as is the preference of it's citizenry. And a democracy to boot.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »Yes indeed - the wonder of capitalist democracy - get lied to by the chancers in order to write a few numbers on a piece of paper once every five years and then get screwed for five years while you wait for an opportunity to kick back. I'll pass thanks
No doubt you can point to this CSO data? Because they don't measure Income and Living Conditions that way. Sounds made up to me.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »You bet - according to the CSO the bottom 90% of the population have seen their living standards fall year on year since the crash in 2008 -
Not really - see below.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »the richest 10% have been creaming €billions off the top during the same time.
That richest 300 are, primarily, not tax resident here, or have income from foreign businesses, so it's rather unlikely that there's any means of getting your hands on their wealth growth.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »The richest 300 people in the country increased their wealth by €7billion in the past year (the size of the budget deficit)
The budget deficit this year is €7billion and this year the government will pay €8billion in interest to the IMF/ECB.
Tax expenditure in the current budget is €65.2 billion, with €8 billion allocated to servicing debt, of which the bank bailout debt costs amount to €1.6 billion - 3% of tax outgoings. Which would leave 97% of tax to cover day to day expenditure, and loans for day to day expenditure., as already statedJolly Red Giant wrote: »Government current expenditure in 2013 is €51.5 billion of which €42.3 billion goes on health, welfare and education not the 97% you claim - right-wing hacks generally can't do sums either.
Given your dismissal of our parliamentary democracy, it's a wonder you care one way or another. What's for sure is there's no appetite for your revolution, so whatever transpires come the next elections, it won't be good news for the particular movement you envisage for the working class people.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »After all of this - working class people are on the move - the government we on the ropes. The days of the government bending people over and giving it to the 90% up the rear end are over. The only issue to be resolved is how big a kicking FG and LP are going to get and how much of an earthquake will impact on the current political system. The days of the two and a half parties divvying up the spoils of office are over.0 -
What's for sure is there's no appetite for your revolution, so whatever transpires come the next elections, it won't be good news for the particular movement you envisage for the working class people.
You give these threads so much win Alastair it's. Fantastic to see. Read the papers read online there is so much appetite for opposing what the government are doing its nearly palpable.
But keep up the spin. As I said already everything you've said so far goes the opposite what.
Loving your posts0 -
Apples and oranges. If you go to hospital, its because you have been sent for treatment. Children are required to go to school. You are comparing the provision of clean water with hospital and school. That is daft.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »Typical b*ll**** - we are all 'consumers'
Well excuse me - when I get sick and end up in hospital I want to be treated as a patient - when my kids are in school I want them treated as students - when I have to flush the toilet I don't want to be lining the pocket of Denis O'Brien or some spiv running a hedge fund.
Water is a resource that costs money to provide. This has to be paid for. And to conserve it, there needs to be a tariff.
I agree with water charges as a concept.
But, the way this Government has rolled out IW and all the associated mess has been an absolute disaster. IW should never be privatised. It should be a semi state like ESB.
And money should be first spend on upgrading the network before charging people. But, the money isn't there for this work unfortunately.
Charging peoplefor water is done is most civilised countries. And people pay these charges without a second thought. They understand that clean water costs money to deliver. The user should pay.0 -
It's a bit like throwing your toys out of the pram. You will never accept Irish Water? Fine, disconnect yourself from the water and sewer mains and enjoy your life. Otherwise, you'll get a bill and deal with it.dave ireland wrote: »No we will not, I speak for myself and I will never accept IW and I will not now believe anything that this government says. I will not accept guarantees, promises or anything from them. I will pay water charges when its in the interest of people and water supply and not in the interest of a bunch of con men,,,,
Can't it be about both? I'm not sure where it was thought up that it would be a brilliant argument to start saying that because it's not about conservation it's not a good idea. I posted in another thread that metered water charges results in a saving of approximately 40kL of water per household per annum. This is a by-product of the fact that people pay, so it IS about conservation. Happy?Peanut2011 wrote: »Simple answer, because it was never about conservation! It was all and is all about the deal the government is content in honouring to EU and IMF!
PS: The Troika didn't make the government create UÉ or, necessarily, charge for water in the manner in which it has been. Just FYI to clear up your prejudices.
"QQQ I hate the way our democracy works, because it didn't turn out the way I wanted it to!" - I say, mockingly.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »You keep repeating this bullsh*t - Fine Gael did not get a majority - the LP campaigned specifically on opposing FGs proposal for water charges and used water charges as the big stick to win 33 seats.
They're in government, so they have a legal mandate to do so. In fact, even in opinion polls they have the highest support.The government has absolutely no mandate to impose water charges.
You'll be needing to provide a source for that and explain away the regional voting trends.Furthermore - this is absolutely irrelevant - the recent elections in May's Euros and Locals and the recent by-elections demonstrate that the current government have - at best - the support of 25% of the electorate, with that number falling all the time.
I'm gonna guess you're new to the whole politics thing. It's what happens, it's what happened since democracy began, you're not going to change it on your keyboard or elsewhere.It is a fallacy to suggest that political parties can promise to do X, Y and Z at election time - then do a deal with other parties to get the mercs and perks that is a mash-up of the worst elements of both - and then expect that, when it has been shown that they lied through their teeth they get a five year free run to wreck the living standards of 90% of the population.
You know what... maybe middle class people are sick of it too. We should stop paying tax and let the economy crash and leave the working class unemployed and without a dole to collect. The bailout is historical now, unless you have a time machine, there's sweet f-all you can do about it.Now - get off the bloody hobby-horse and realise that working class people have paid all they are going to pay for the gambling debts of the spivs and speculators that lined the pockets of FF and FG and are now showing the government that unless they back off, a mass movement of the working class will kick the living be-jaysus out of them over the next 12 months.0 -
Seriously for someone who claims to have never voted Fine Gael you sure do support them tooth and nail. The Fine Gael party could do with more opponents like you.Who is the lead coalition party?.....
They can do no wrong in your eyes.
If they simply followed the mandate given by the Irish people, why not run abolishing the seanad through, take the bondholders to task, address property tax by either lowering it or scraping it. Reforming the way government works, cutting quangoes rather than creating new ones, (IW) and acts of cronyism, "We look after our own".
They failed in their mandate. They promised to change in the way government was organized, an end to cronyism an end to quangoes. They've done nothing but the tried and short term fix of making cuts and squeezing more from the working tax payer, (the majority). Bravo.
I know of nobody who said, 'Vote Fine Gael' they'll set up an extra new charge for water!' A real vote winner....0 -
They can, and have done lots wrong, but that doesn't mean they don't have a mandate.Seriously for someone who claims to have never voted Fine Gael you sure do support them tooth and nail. The Fine Gael party could do with more opponents like you.
They can do no wrong in your eyes..
Eh, they committed to a vote on it, and we voted that down in a referendum. Remember?If they simply followed the mandate given by the Irish people, why not run abolishing the seanad through, .
What exactly does that mean?take the bondholders to task, .
They didn't commit to either in their manifesto. They talked about putting greater control in the hands of the local authorities, which is the case with the 15% reduction some have applied.address property tax by either lowering it or scraping it. .
They've undoubtedly had a mixed bag in terms of living up to their manifesto, but what government has not? Their mandate is still a reality however, until they get voted out.Reforming the way government works, cutting quangoes rather than creating new ones, (IW) and acts of cronyism, "We look after our own".
They failed in their mandate. They promised to change in the way government was organized, an end to cronyism an end to quangoes. They've done nothing but the tried and short term fix of making cuts and squeezing more from the woking tax payer. Bravo.
I know of nobody who said, 'Vote Fine Gael' they'll set up an extra new charge for water!' A real vote winner....0 -
User should pay. Same as with electricity or telephone service.
Pretty simple stuff really.
We pay for water supply already with tax's
We never paid for electricity, telephone or gas in tax's, we always paid these in a pay for what you use basic, make's no difference if state owned or private owned we always paid just ""once"", separately and nothing to do with tax's
Its not like the bins either, bin collection has fare competition and we can bring our own waste/recycling to a centre ourselves if we so "chose"0 -
Advertisement
-
They can, and have done lots wrong, but that doesn't mean they don't have a mandate.
Eh, they committed to a vote on it, and we voted that down in a referendum. Remember?
Eh, you misread my post. I asked why they didn't run it through, without any meaningful debate, y'know, like IW?0
Advertisement