Do we already pay for water?

FREETV · 30-10-2014 8:11pm

PPS number misuse is one of the most dangerous types of identity theft. A thief may use your NI number fraudulently to obtain Social Security benefits, welfare benefits, tax refunds, or credit. In other cases, a thief might use your NI number to obtain employment in your name. An identity thief's use of your PPS number can cause you to lose the legitimate benefits to which you are entitled.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-used-someone-elses-identity-and-pps-number-to-claim-more-than-30k-in-disability-allowances-29143685.html

Phoebas · 30-10-2014 8:11pm

Galego wrote: »

Thanks for providing me your PPS number.

I will go and check my eyes this weekend using your PPS number.

My favourite colour is yellow - go and have your teeth cleaned too.

Phoebas · 30-10-2014 8:14pm

FREETV wrote: »

PPS number misuse is one of the most dangerous types of identity theft. A thief may use your NI number fraudulently to obtain Social Security benefits, welfare benefits, tax refunds, or credit. In other cases, a thief might use your NI number to obtain employment in your name. An identity thief's use of your PPS number can cause you to lose the legitimate benefits to which you are entitled.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-used-someone-elses-identity-and-pps-number-to-claim-more-than-30k-in-disability-allowances-29143685.html

You keep on posting stuff that you read online, but you don't seem to be able to explain how - now that you know my PPSN - you could do something fraudulent with it.

Can you explain, for example, the mechanics of someone else claiming a tax refund using my PPSN?

LeinsterDub · 30-10-2014 8:14pm

Phoebas wrote: »

Hold on a second - none of those links explain how someone having my PPSN can be used to send me junk mail.
Somebody who got hold of my name and address could easily bombard me with junk mail - but nobody complains about disclosing that information to IW.

They don't even need your name. Letters can still be sent to the occupier or resident right?

redmca2 · 30-10-2014 8:47pm

When will the campaign for free/unpaid for electricity begin?
The logic for anyone who thinks we shouldn't pay for water is that we shouldn't pay for electricity and that it be covered by general taxes.

The idea that we already pay for water through taxes would be fine if all water users paid tax, but they don't.

It seems that all the objectors are right and the rest of Europe are wrong. An Irish solution to an Irish problem?

Repeat after me: "No Electricity Charges"

Jolly Red Giant · 30-10-2014 8:47pm

Manach wrote: »

Unfortunately the revenues collected are no longer sufficient for the government increase in spending as it takes up more of the GDP in activities outside its core functions. Hence the water tax is one more step in the march to pay for core services as the state continues to spend unchecked as it has the practically unchecked power and administrative apparatus to collect monies from people.

The deficit is €7billion and we are paying the IMF/ECB/various other sharks and spivs - €8billion in interest on the bailout (a bailout of the gambling debts of the rich elites)

Jolly Red Giant · 30-10-2014 8:50pm

redmca2 wrote: »

When will the campaign for free/unpaid for electricity begin?
The logic for anyone who thinks we shouldn't pay for water is that we shouldn't pay for electricity and that it be covered by general taxes.

The idea that we already pay for water through taxes would be fine if all water users paid tax, but they don't.

It seems that all the objectors are right and the rest of Europe are wrong. An Irish solution to an Irish problem?

Repeat after me: "No Electricity Charges"

Who said we shouldn't pay for water - as the OP shows - we already pay for it.

If you got two ESB bills and were told you had to pay both you wouldn't be so facetious.

twowheelsgood · 30-10-2014 8:51pm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The deficit is €7billion and we are paying the IMF/ECB/various other sharks and spivs - €8billion in interest on the bailout (a bailout of the gambling debts of the rich elites)

Yeah, we should have gone with a different lender when we went looking to plug our €20b deficit hole.

Fr. Ned · 30-10-2014 8:53pm

redmca2 wrote: »

When will the campaign for free/unpaid for electricity begin?
The logic for anyone who thinks we shouldn't pay for water is that we shouldn't pay for electricity and that it be covered by general taxes.

The idea that we already pay for water through taxes would be fine if all water users paid tax, but they don't.

It seems that all the objectors are right and the rest of Europe are wrong. An Irish solution to an Irish problem?

Repeat after me: "No Electricity Charges"

I can choose from several companies to supply me with electricity.
How many water companies can I choose from?

twowheelsgood · 30-10-2014 8:56pm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Who said we shouldn't pay for water - as the OP shows - we already pay for it.

If you got two ESB bills and were told you had to pay both you wouldn't be so facetious.

But if one payment was forwarded by the electricity company to your gas supplier to pay that bill you'd be content I presume?

Fr. Ned · 30-10-2014 8:58pm

Fuzzy wrote: »

1) With a straight face you can say that no external parties forced the government to set Irish Water up?

Reference:
"In October 2010, the administration’s ‘National Recovery Plan 2010-2014’ pledged that metering would form part of charges. Metering was to be introduced by 2014. As part of the EC-ECB-IMF Programme of Assistance to Ireland, agreed in November 2010, the Coalition agreed to the introduction of domestic water charges in 2012/2013."

So what the part in bold means is that they essentially forced the gov to start water charges, or they wouldn't get the "Programme of Assistance" (ie Money).

2) This is not the point. It's a stealth tax. I too understand how tax increases work.

Don't kill me for referencing wikipedia, but this article is actually pretty straightforward to understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

The 'Irish Water' super quango is the brainchild of FG and FG alone.
They even had it named in 2009, a full 2 years before they assumed office.

The FFail MOU with the troika would have allowed FFail not to set up this quango as long as they could show how they could raise a similar amount of money.

Make no mistake about it, 'Irish Water' is FG's baby all the way.

micosoft · 30-10-2014 9:03pm

Fuzzy wrote: »

1) With a straight face you can say that no external parties forced the government to set Irish Water up?

Reference:
"In October 2010, the administration’s ‘National Recovery Plan 2010-2014’ pledged that metering would form part of charges. Metering was to be introduced by 2014. As part of the EC-ECB-IMF Programme of Assistance to Ireland, agreed in November 2010, the Coalition agreed to the introduction of domestic water charges in 2012/2013."

So what the part in bold means is that they essentially forced the gov to start water charges, or they wouldn't get the "Programme of Assistance" (ie Money).

Because of the general incompetence of the Irish Electorate in voting in the car crash economics of Fianna Fail, we had to borrow from the EU and the IMF who were the ONLY people willing to do this. Unsurprisingly they asked us how we intended to a. pay them back their taxpayers money b. how we were going to avoid crashing our tax system by putting most of our eggs in the cyclical property tax. We could have proposed a tax on cheese. It was up to us to describe HOW we would do this.

2) This is not the point. It's a stealth tax. I too understand how tax increases work.

Do you know what the word stealth means? Is the ESB bill you get a "stealth tax". It's a meaningless phrase and being charged for the water you use is about as direct and un-stealthy as it gets.

Don't kill me for referencing wikipedia, but this article is actually pretty straightforward to understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland[/QUOTE]

Are you suggesting our tax policy be set in stone by wikipedia articles?

Fr. Ned · 30-10-2014 9:09pm

micosoft wrote: »

Because of the general incompetence of the Irish Electorate in voting in the car crash economics of Fianna Fail, we had to borrow from the EU and the IMF who were the ONLY people willing to do this. Unsurprisingly they asked us how we intended to a. pay them back their taxpayers money b. how we were going to avoid crashing our tax system by putting most of our eggs in the cyclical property tax. We could have proposed a tax on cheese. It was up to us to describe HOW we would do this.

Well, finally, someone in favour of water charges tells it as it is.
It's not about conservation and it's not about having a better system.
It's about taking the provision of water off the government books so there's more money left to pay the debts built up and 'taxing' us in another way for water.

Thanks for that.

micosoft · 30-10-2014 9:11pm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Who said we shouldn't pay for water - as the OP shows - we already pay for it.

If you got two ESB bills and were told you had to pay both you wouldn't be so facetious.

The OP showed nothing of the sort given we have a ten billion euro deficit. A deficit that is mainly comprised of Social Welfare and Health spending on us.

And you do get two bills (albeit on one piece of paper). There is no "ESB" bill. You get a bill from your energy supplier for the cost of generating the electricity you use. That goes to the electricity generator (e.g. Airtricity).
Also on this bill is a second charge for running the electricity distribution grid. That goes to ESB networks, the regulated entity that runs the power grid.

micosoft · 30-10-2014 9:15pm

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Well, finally, someone in favour of water charges tells it as it is.
It's not about conservation and it's not about having a better system.
It's about taking the provision of water off the government books so there's more money left to pay the debts built up and 'taxing' us in another way for water.

Thanks for that.

You seem to be extremely limited in your thinking if you can't grasp that sometimes we do things for multiple reasons. It is to conserve water AND to raise revenue to improve our infrastructure AND to take debt off Government books.

Fr. Ned · 30-10-2014 9:18pm

micosoft wrote: »

You seem to be extremely limited in your thinking if you can't grasp that sometimes we do things for multiple reasons. It is to conserve water AND to raise revenue to improve our infrastructure AND to take debt off Government books.

How can it be about water conservation if the super quango is allowed increase it's price per unit if we don't use enough??
Why would anyone bother conserving water?

€1.2 billion per year was been spent from general taxation up to this, that would be quite enough to provide water, estimated at somewhere around €650 million pa and provide for infrastructural upgrades if the system was ran correctly.

That just leaves us with point 3......

micosoft · 30-10-2014 9:29pm

Fr. Ned wrote: »

How can it be about water conservation if the super quango is allowed increase it's price per unit if we don't use enough??
Why would anyone bother conserving water?

Again, such limited capacity to hold multiple variables in ones head. That would only be true if population growth was zero. It's is obviously not and growing significantly enough that any conservation would be outpaced by demand growth from a growing population. At best conservation will slow down overall growth. Meaning that the fixed costs are still apportioned across a growing base.

Fr. Ned · 30-10-2014 9:34pm

micosoft wrote: »

Again, such limited capacity to hold multiple variables in ones head.

You continue on with the personal abuse. I'm out, for the moment anyway.

Phoebas · 30-10-2014 9:35pm

Fr. Ned wrote: »

How can it be about water conservation if the super quango is allowed increase it's price per unit if we don't use enough??

It isn't.

For Reals · 30-10-2014 10:20pm

redmca2 wrote: »

When will the campaign for free/unpaid for electricity begin?
The logic for anyone who thinks we shouldn't pay for water is that we shouldn't pay for electricity and that it be covered by general taxes.

The idea that we already pay for water through taxes would be fine if all water users paid tax, but they don't.

It seems that all the objectors are right and the rest of Europe are wrong. An Irish solution to an Irish problem?

Repeat after me: "No Electricity Charges"

Nobody expects free water, they expect to continue paying through general taxation.
If general taxation is short raise taxes. Pretty simple.
As for your 'not all users pay tax' baloney, what about street lights, traffic lights, grants to public museums, park benches? We should have a tax for each and a quango run by friends of Fine Gael for each one? Nonsense.

Phoebas · 30-10-2014 10:24pm

For Reals wrote: »

As for your 'not all users pay tax' baloney, what about street lights, traffic lights, grants to public museums, park benches? We should have a tax for each and a quango run by friends of Fine Gael for each one? Nonsense.

We have a tax for much of that - the LPT*.

* Universally accepted - 98% compliance.

Fr. Ned · 30-10-2014 10:25pm

Phoebas wrote: »

It isn't.

Ok, they have to ask the regulator first.
How does that go with Bord Gais

Fr. Ned · 30-10-2014 10:26pm

Phoebas wrote: »

We have a tax for much of that - the LPT*.

* Universally accepted - 98% compliance.

Is that the LPT from which €180 million was taken to set up the water quango?

For Reals · 30-10-2014 10:29pm

micosoft wrote: »

Because of the general incompetence of the Irish Electorate in voting in the car crash economics of Fianna Fail, we had to borrow from the EU and the IMF who were the ONLY people willing to do this. Unsurprisingly they asked us how we intended to a. pay them back their taxpayers money b. how we were going to avoid crashing our tax system by putting most of our eggs in the cyclical property tax. We could have proposed a tax on cheese. It was up to us to describe HOW we would do this.

2) This is not the point. It's a stealth tax. I too understand how tax increases work.

Do you know what the word stealth means? Is the ESB bill you get a "stealth tax". It's a meaningless phrase and being charged for the water you use is about as direct and un-stealthy as it gets.

Don't kill me for referencing wikipedia, but this article is actually pretty straightforward to understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

Are you suggesting our tax policy be set in stone by wikipedia articles?

The IMF were delighted we chose to borrow, 'We took one for the team' smirked Noonan.
We probably saved the Euro.
The only people not to gain from this whole affair was the working to lower middle class taxpayer.
We should have looked to Iceland, but the FG lads wouldn't be set up for cushy EU jobs.

A stealth tax is a tax under the guise of something else. For example, taking something like street lights and telling people we can't aford them and setting up Irish Streetlight, rather than raising taxes to help meet any shortfall.

hmmm · 30-10-2014 11:22pm

For Reals wrote: »

If general taxation is short raise taxes. Pretty simple.

Instead of people paying for what they use, someone else should pay more tax? We should give out "free" food, electricity and Sky TV subs while we're at it, and if we're a bit short we'll just "raise taxes".

I expect these marches this weekend to feature the usual collection of welfare recipients and pensioners, marching together in their brave demands that the middle class worker pays for their lifestyle.

Guy:Incognito · 30-10-2014 11:37pm

FREETV wrote: »

Under EU Competition Law as it is already a semi-state body it will be forced in time to be privatised and then the PPS numbers would be sold on to a lot of marketing companies to make millions by whoever buys Irish Water.

http://richardboydbarrett.ie/2012/04/18/kenny-wrong-or-lying-eu-law-means-water-charges-equal-privatisation/

Denis O' Brien owns GMC Sierra aka Siteserv and Newstalk Radio so of course they are to be biased in favour of Irish Water and water charges and keep pushing for them both.

He'd actually be better off if the whole thing collapsed now I'd imagine. His contract for fitting meters (there are others btw, not just his company) would have to be paid and they wouldn't have to spend money fitting the meters.

Fr. Ned · 30-10-2014 11:39pm

hmmm wrote: »

I expect these marches this weekend to feature the usual collection of welfare recipients and pensioners, marching together in their brave demands that the middle class worker pays for their lifestyle.

You obviously didn't pay much attention to the make up of protesters at the last march then.

Guy:Incognito · 30-10-2014 11:42pm

Phoebas wrote: »

My PPSN is 5146365F.
How does this help someone send me junk mail?

Or anything else?

Haha, your ****ed now. I just paid tax using that number. Oh wait............

Guy:Incognito · 30-10-2014 11:49pm

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Well, finally, someone in favour of water charges tells it as it is.
It's not about conservation and it's not about having a better system.
It's about taking the provision of water off the government books so there's more money left to pay the debts built up and 'taxing' us in another way for water.

Thanks for that.

When not paying directly for water , usage (and therefore cost to supply) is only ever going to go one way, up.With everyone metered and paying for their usage they will at the very least keep consumption (and cost to supply) the same.

Guy:Incognito · 30-10-2014 11:53pm

For Reals wrote: »

Nobody expects free water, they expect to continue paying through general taxation.
If general taxation is short raise taxes. Pretty simple.
As for your 'not all users pay tax' baloney, what about street lights, traffic lights, grants to public museums, park benches? We should have a tax for each and a quango run by friends of Fine Gael for each one? Nonsense.

Do you use more electricity in your personal street light than me?

Would paying for electricity from general taxation and just letting everyone use what they like be fair?

Psychedelic Pigeon · 30-10-2014 11:53pm

Fuzzy wrote: »

Doesn't matter, you are paying for it twice anyways.
The people who say "water isn't free, you need to pay for it" are being disingenuous.

Seriously, fúck those old men in our parliament who are too afraid to stand up to their IMF/Euro masters. History will judge them harshly I am sure.

God fuzzy, how dare you speak like that about our masters, the ECB have a very hard job printing up money out of thin air and charging us all interest on it, I know a banker who has only had 3 holidays this year.
The Rothschild family made billions off the irish taxpayer in the bailout and they are purported to be the wealthiest family in the world worth upwards of a trillion dollars if you include all of them, have you no compassion for these poor people who lost their bets on the stock market??

Scofflaw · 31-10-2014 12:22am

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The deficit is €7billion and we are paying the IMF/ECB/various other sharks and spivs - €8billion in interest on the bailout (a bailout of the gambling debts of the rich elites)

It's interesting how divorced popular narratives can be from reality. The bailout wasn't additional money we had to spend on top of our normal borrowing, nor did any of it go into the banks.

The bailout was a loan that did nothing more than replace what would otherwise have been borrowing from the markets, and with loans that carried lower interest rates than the market would have charged - much lower, after rates were changed a couple of months in.

Our debt is currently €174bn, interest is currently about €7.9bn total. The bailout was €67.5bn, at interest rates of 5% on the IMF's €22.5bn, and 2.5% on the other €45bn from Europe. So of the interest we currently pay, €1.125bn is to the IMF, €1.125bn to Europe (EFSF/EU), and the other €5.7bn to the markets.

What would the position have been without the bailout? Well, market interest rates at the time of the bailout were around 8%, so if we'd borrowed from the markets instead of the EU/IMF, we'd be paying €5.4bn on the €67.5bn, for a total interest payment annually of €11.1bn instead of €7.9bn - we'd be €3.2bn annually worse off.

And we would have borrowed the money anyway, because all of that €67.5bn went into our deficit. It was only a question of where we borrowed it from, not of whether we would borrow it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Banjo String · 31-10-2014 12:44am

Phoebas wrote: »

We have a tax for much of that - the LPT*.

* Universally accepted - 98% compliance.

Is that the same lpt FG didn't want to entertain

alastair · 31-10-2014 1:12am

Fr. Ned wrote: »

I can choose from several companies to supply me with electricity.
How many water companies can I choose from?

You're free to source your own water. Lots of it near your gaff.

alastair · 31-10-2014 1:13am

Fr. Ned wrote: »

The 'Irish Water' super quango is the brainchild of FG and FG alone.
They even had it named in 2009, a full 2 years before they assumed office.

The FFail MOU with the troika would have allowed FFail not to set up this quango as long as they could show how they could raise a similar amount of money.

Make no mistake about it, 'Irish Water' is FG's baby all the way.

Good to know even FG have a good idea from time to time.

alastair · 31-10-2014 1:16am

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Well, finally, someone in favour of water charges tells it as it is.
It's not about conservation and it's not about having a better system.
It's about taking the provision of water off the government books so there's more money left to pay the debts built up and 'taxing' us in another way for water.

Thanks for that.

It's for all of the above. Better book-keeping for the govt. Broadened tax base. Greater sustainability and conservation on the basis of metering. Economy of administrative resources. All round improvements.

alastair · 31-10-2014 1:21am

For Reals wrote: »

A stealth tax is a tax under the guise of something else. For example, taking something like street lights and telling people we can't aford them and setting up Irish Streetlight, rather than raising taxes to help meet any shortfall.

As already mentioned - we couldn't afford to pay for street lights, so we did set up a specific mechanism for funding them - the LPT.

Jolly Red Giant · 31-10-2014 1:32am

micosoft wrote: »

The OP showed nothing of the sort given we have a ten billion euro deficit. A deficit that is mainly comprised of Social Welfare and Health spending on us.

the deficit is €7billion and ALL of it is interest on the bailout (plus a further €1billion on top)

And the rest of your post shows how pedantic you are (stupid and pedantic at the same time - a lethal combination).

seanaway · 31-10-2014 10:35am

micosoft wrote: »

The OP showed nothing of the sort given we have a ten billion euro deficit. A deficit that is mainly comprised of Social Welfare and Health spending on us.

Glad you mentioned health.

The HSE demonstrates that no politician in Ireland has eirther the brains or the balls to tackle the established system effectively.

A billion a year could easily be saved by cutting th elayers of management in the HSE.

While they are at it they could well cut another billion by cutting the layers in other civil servant areas.

The public sector is inefficient at best. And no, I'm not talking about the front line staff.

FreudianSlippers · 31-10-2014 11:04am

FREETV wrote: »

PPS number misuse is one of the most dangerous types of identity theft. A thief may use your NI number fraudulently to obtain Social Security benefits, welfare benefits, tax refunds, or credit. In other cases, a thief might use your NI number to obtain employment in your name. An identity thief's use of your PPS number can cause you to lose the legitimate benefits to which you are entitled.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-used-someone-elses-identity-and-pps-number-to-claim-more-than-30k-in-disability-allowances-29143685.html

What kind of thief would want to be a media lawyer? Jesus, what kind of employer would fall for that!?

Chips Lovell · 31-10-2014 11:07am

seanaway wrote: »

The HSE demonstrates that no politician in Ireland has eirther the brains or the balls to tackle the established system effectively.

A billion a year could easily be saved by cutting th elayers of management in the HSE.

No it couldn't. The entire wage bill for management and administration in the HSE was €570 million in 2013.

What are you going to do? Fire everyone twice?

FREETV · 31-10-2014 2:30pm

I hope that one million people or close to it march nationwide tomorrow.
We have them panicking, they are on the ropes and we can give them the final knock out blow if we all hang in and stick with it.
We will be a force to be reckoned with and will show them that they are our servants and it is not the other way around.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/government-to-propose-100-off-water-bill-649223.html
This news headline is frankly an insult to those opposing water charges and Irish Water.

They can keep their measly water allowance, they cannot be trusted with their Irish Water being enshrined in legislation nonsense, they could easily change it again before their Christmas break late at night and push it through slyly unbeknownst to us all and then sell off Irish Water to O'Brien or the highest bidder.

FreudianSlippers · 31-10-2014 2:33pm

FREETV wrote: »

I hope that one million people or close to it march nationwide tomorrow.
We have them panicking, they are on the ropes and we can give them the final knock out blow if we all hang in and stick with it.
We will be a force to be reckoned with and will show them that they are our servants and it is not the other way around.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/government-to-propose-100-off-water-bill-649223.html

They can keep their measly water allowance, they cannot be trusted with their Irish Water being enshrined in legislation nonsense, they could easily change it again before their Christmas break late at night and push it through slyly unbeknownst to us all and then sell off Irish Water to O'Brien or the highest bidder.

Lol a million people. I'm guessing that no matter how many do attend that'll be the reported number from the protester camp.

I hope eleventybillion people march tomorrow!

FREETV · 31-10-2014 2:43pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Lol a million people. I'm guessing that no matter how many do attend that'll be the reported number from the protester camp.

I hope eleventybillion people march tomorrow!

I would like to see a lot of Filipino nurses, carers and doctors marching too.
The ones who are already Irish Citizens and off work at least.
There must be fifty thousand of them in Ireland along with their children. I know quite a few.
They will be paying their hard earned money too as they work for the state.
Polish and Russians and other nationalities living here too.

FreudianSlippers · 31-10-2014 2:46pm

FREETV wrote: »

I would like to see a lot of Filipino nurses, carers and doctors marching too.
The ones who are already Irish Citizens and off work at least.
There must be fifty thousand of them in Ireland along with their children. I know quite a few.
They will be paying their hard earned money too as they work for the state.
Polish and Russians and other nationalities living here too.

Does anyone else understand what the hell is happening right now? Is this real life?

dar100 · 31-10-2014 2:56pm

It's very real. As real as Dublin coming to a stand still tomorrow, when the population stand up and put collective action in instead of the usual word salad.

But you won't hear about this on RTE, and if you do, it won't depict the real story

alastair · 31-10-2014 3:02pm

dar100 wrote: »

It's very real. As real as Dublin coming to a stand still tomorrow, when the population stand up and put collective action in instead of the usual word salad.

But you won't hear about this on RTE, and if you do, it won't depict the real story

The whole Filipino nurse, and their many kids angle is suppressed on RTE. That's for sure.

Fr. Ned · 31-10-2014 6:05pm

dar100 wrote: »

It's very real. As real as Dublin coming to a stand still tomorrow, when the population stand up and put collective action in instead of the usual word salad.

But you won't hear about this on RTE, and if you do, it won't depict the real story

RTE are the state mouthpiece. Pravda, Irish style.
Do you honestly think that RTE will shoot the goose that lays the golden egg?
Where else would they get the money to pay Miriam and Joe almost €300,000 PA?
Would anyone in their right mind actually pay a subscription to watch the tripe on RTE?

For Reals · 31-10-2014 6:34pm

alastair wrote: »

As already mentioned - we couldn't afford to pay for street lights, so we did set up a specific mechanism for funding them - the LPT.

More complete bull****.
It makes no blind bit of difference to the taxpayer which new body gets his or her taxes. Compartmentalizing these things costs money not saves it. If the taxpayer is paying out more, how is the government saving anyone money, other than from shifting columns in their ledger?
This is the whole problem with the sometimes needs a bailout, recessions are part of life, system.
Cooking the books on the shoulders of the tax payer, looks great on paper but cripples the worker.

The Housing tax and the water tax and extra earners, while Fine Gael can look like financial whizz kids to anyone foolish enough to buy it.

'We can't afford it', that literally goes for everything. The door is open for a myriad of charges and semi/private/state/partner quangos. It's criminal.

teddy_303 · 31-10-2014 6:43pm

the IMF... http://youtu.be/m-dsiufhMu0

Do we already pay for water?

Comments