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

why protest over water and not USC?

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    joolsveer wrote: »
    I object to paying the new water charges on the basis that I have been paying water charges through taxes for many years. I pay USC also.

    Er...good for you?


  • Options
    #63
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,665 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    joolsveer wrote: »
    I object to paying the new water charges on the basis that I have been paying water charges through taxes for many years. I pay USC also.

    Yes and from now on you wont be paying through taxes, the concept isnt exactly rocket science especially since the vast majority of people have gotten how much they will be paying under the new charges scheme back with the budget


  • Options
    #64
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Yes and from now on you wont be paying through taxes, the concept isnt exactly rocket science especially since the vast majority of people have gotten how much they will be paying under the new charges scheme back with the budget

    Well when I see the government putting into legislation that water charges will be offset via the direct tax that I pay then thats the only acceptable way i would pay it.. As pointed out people are already paying for water..What else does our direct taxes pay for?


  • Options
    #65
    BmCon
    Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭BmCon


    The water charge affects everybody where the USC means nothing if your not working.


  • Options
    #66
    joolsveer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭joolsveer


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Er...good for you?

    Why? By the way I also object to paying USC.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    joolsveer wrote: »
    Why? By the way I also object to paying USC.

    Because I am not sure why the post was directed at me? The opening Q was why there are so many people protesting abotu IW and not USC. I pointed out that many people who are affected by IW are not affected by USC.


  • Options
    #68
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Because I am not sure why the post was directed at me? The opening Q was why there are so many people protesting abotu IW and not USC. I pointed out that many people who are affected by IW are not affected by USC.

    Its easy to see why one is being protested against one tax hits 100% of the population the other hits workers who have not got the time to protest as they are enslaved to pay for the bleeding heart lefties who will not be happy until everyone is broke and the power hunger elitists on the right who have the mantra my profit is mine but my debt is everyones..Its those in the middle paying for all asunder that are the real victims here...


  • Options
    #69
    greendom
    Registered Users Posts: 16,382 ✭✭✭✭greendom


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Its easy to see why one is being protested against one tax hits 100% of the population the other hits workers who have not got the time to protest as they are enslaved to pay for the bleeding heart lefties who will not be happy until everyone is broke and the power hunger elitists on the right who have the mantra my profit is mine but my debt is everyones..Its those in the middle paying for all asunder that are the real victims here...

    USC is a very regressive tax, it's the working poor who are the real victims here


  • Options
    #70
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    greendom wrote: »
    USC is a very regressive tax, it's the working poor who are the real victims here

    Do the working poor receive the same p1ss poor services that others pay for..Yes is the answer therefore they should pay something towards them. Also taking the whole income tax regime in this country we have one of the most progressive taxation policies in the world. Those who earn the most pay the most


  • Options
    #71
    ciaranlong
    Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭ciaranlong


    I think another issue is that the water charges will take the form of a bill (as far as I understand) whereas the USC is a direct deduction from peoples' pay-packets. So some people will be concerned about having enough money to pay the bill when it is due. I think that's one of the best arguments for funding water services through general taxation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,105 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    joolsveer wrote: »
    I object to paying the new water charges on the basis that I have been paying water charges through taxes for many years. I pay USC also.

    Why we won’t be paying twice for water

    During 2013 the Govt collected €60,837m, or 61bn approx. During 2013 the Govt spent €70,804, or €71bn approx.

    The general Govt deficit was €9,967 or nearly 10bn.



    Currently the Central Govt pay grants to the local councils to run the 1,000+ water and wastewater treatment plants.

    The idea is that Govt grants to IW will fall, and be replaced by people paying water charges.

    The costs to run the 1000+ plants shouldn’t change, but people will be paying for them directly, rather than then via Govt grants to councils.

    So the Govt will spend less, and the fiscal deficit will fall, as it has to.

    So nobody will be “paying twice”.

    Yes, people will be paying a new tax/charge to help reduce the fiscal deficit.

    So, to be clear, the LPT and water charges are new taxes/charges to help reduce public borrowing, and are part of the broadening of the tax base.

    Of course, nobody likes new or higher taxes. An alternative to the LPT and water charges is higher consumption taxes or higher income taxes.

    To people who say: “we already pay” – yes we already pay taxes, but they are not enough to cover public spending.


  • Options
    #73
    Plates
    Registered Users Posts: 925 ✭✭✭Plates


    joolsveer wrote: »
    I object to paying the new water charges on the basis that I have been paying water charges through taxes for many years. I pay USC also.



    How many times do we need to hear that argument trotted out?


    It's like a fella winning €100 on a bet, going on loads of p*ss ups, spending multiples of what he won but constantly saying "me winnings paid for that session".


  • Options
    #74
    greendom
    Registered Users Posts: 16,382 ✭✭✭✭greendom


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Do the working poor receive the same p1ss poor services that others pay for..Yes is the answer therefore they should pay something towards them. Also taking the whole income tax regime in this country we have one of the most progressive taxation policies in the world. Those who earn the most pay the most

    I often hear this bandied about - have you any stats to back this up ?


  • Options
    #75
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Geuze wrote: »
    Why we won’t be paying twice for water

    During 2013 the Govt collected €60,837m, or 61bn approx. During 2013 the Govt spent €70,804, or €71bn approx.

    The general Govt deficit was €9,967 or nearly 10bn.



    Currently the Central Govt pay grants to the local councils to run the 1,000+ water and wastewater treatment plants.

    The idea is that Govt grants to IW will fall, and be replaced by people paying water charges.

    The costs to run the 1000+ plants shouldn’t change, but people will be paying for them directly, rather than then via Govt grants to councils.

    So the Govt will spend less, and the fiscal deficit will fall, as it has to.

    So nobody will be “paying twice”.

    Yes, people will be paying a new tax/charge to help reduce the fiscal deficit.

    So, to be clear, the LPT and water charges are new taxes/charges to help reduce public borrowing, and are part of the broadening of the tax base.

    Of course, nobody likes new or higher taxes. An alternative to the LPT and water charges is higher consumption taxes or higher income taxes.

    To people who say: “we already pay” – yes we already pay taxes, but they are not enough to cover public spending.

    Well I will take you to task on that..
    How much are we paying for banking clusterphucks,
    How much are we paying for pensions for public servants who phucked the country up.
    How much are we paying in social welfare
    and finally how much are we paying our current public servants.

    We pay enough for water the govenment chooses to over fund all of the above areas with my tax so tell them to feel free to cut from any of the above areas of expenditure to cover water..Thanks


  • Options
    #76
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,105 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    greendom wrote: »
    I often hear this bandied about - have you any stats to back this up ?


    http://www.publicpolicy.ie/wp-content/uploads/Budget-2013-Progressivity-of-Irish-Income-Tax-System1.pdf

    http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/Structure-of-Irelands-Tax-System_0.pdf


  • Options
    #77
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    greendom wrote: »
    I often hear this bandied about - have you any stats to back this up ?


    ehh how much do we hit the hgher bracket at..oh ehmmm at around the point of the AIW so at the point where the average is we pay over half our wage that is made over that to the government on direct taxation that is proof in itself even with the recent changes in the budget


  • Options
    #78
    greendom
    Registered Users Posts: 16,382 ✭✭✭✭greendom


    Geuze wrote: »
    http://www.publicpolicy.ie/wp-content/uploads/Budget-2013-Progressivity-of-Irish-Income-Tax-System1.pdf

    http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/Structure-of-Irelands-Tax-System_0.pdf

    not sure the table in the first article includes usc (it says income tax +employee contributions)


  • Options
    #79
    jonski
    Registered Users Posts: 6,389 ✭✭✭jonski


    I think people didn't protest against the USC because they all knew at the time that the country was in the crapper and that taxes would have to rise , I think they also thought that as it was a separate tax it would be reduced when the country got back on it's feet and eventually done away with .

    I think people are protesting against Irish Water because they feel :

    a: that the next time there is a recession it will be sold off and privatised ,

    b: that the rates will go up and the grant will disappear ,

    c: that Irish Water is a massive quango that will soak up more money than necessary in wages and bonuses and cronyism and bad management with zero accountability .

    d: that they were already getting their water through general taxation and they feel they will be paying twice for it

    And I think that the protesters don't believe the government when they tell them that the above won't happen .


  • Options
    #80
    Icepick
    Registered Users Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭Icepick


    fliball123 wrote: »
    We get phuck all else for our taxes.
    In fact we got 10 billion more for our taxes.
    That a lot of it wasted by Public Service and welfare is a different issue.


  • Options
    #81
    greendom
    Registered Users Posts: 16,382 ✭✭✭✭greendom


    fliball123 wrote: »
    ehh how much do we hit the hgher bracket at..oh ehmmm at around the point of the AIW so at the point where the average is we pay over half our wage that is made over that to the government on direct taxation that is proof in itself even with the recent changes in the budget

    That sounds pretty regressive to me, but I think your calculations are way out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    jonski wrote: »
    I think people didn't protest against the USC because they all knew at the time that the country was in the crapper and that taxes would have to rise , I think they also thought that as it was a separate tax it would be reduced when the country got back on it's feet and eventually done away with .

    I think people are protesting against Irish Water because they feel :

    a: that the next time there is a recession it will be sold off and privatised ,

    b: that the rates will go up and the grant will disappear ,

    c: that Irish Water is a massive quango that will soak up more money than necessary in wages and bonuses and cronyism and bad management with zero accountability .

    d: that they were already getting their water through general taxation and they feel they will be paying twice for it

    And I think that the protesters don't believe the government when they tell them that the above won't happen .

    e: Public confidence was obliterated when "Government Minister Says They Can't Intervene In Irish Water Bonus Payments", which is essentially all of the above points rolled into one, before the damn thing even got off the ground


  • Options
    #83
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    greendom wrote: »
    That sounds pretty regressive to me, but I think your calculations are way out.

    Its progressive in the sence that those who earn the most pay the most, when you take USC, PRSI and PAYE the 3 income taxes paid at a very low level 33k now with the small increase in the budget we are paying 50% of what is earned over that. This is in and around what the average industrial wage is. You only need to compare rates in the likes of the UK and America for the rate that the higher tax bracket kicks in ..Its a lot more than the amount that it kicks in within Ireland.

    It is regressive in the sense that it stifles peoples ambition..You work hard, educate yourself and get a better job all of a sudden the reward is no where near what it should be


  • Options
    #84
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,105 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Well I will take you to task on that..
    How much are we paying for banking clusterphucks,
    How much are we paying for pensions for public servants who phucked the country up.
    How much are we paying in social welfare
    and finally how much are we paying our current public servants.

    We pay enough for water the govenment chooses to over fund all of the above areas with my tax so tell them to feel free to cut from any of the above areas of expenditure to cover water..Thanks

    I fully agree that the 64bn cost of the banking crisis is sickening.

    And I agree with doing anything and everything to reduce that cost.

    I agree that PS pensions are too generous, and I have repeatedly called for larger cuts to PS pensions.

    Although most SW rates have been cut twice, I would go further and abolish JSA and OPF payments.


  • Options
    #85
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Geuze wrote: »
    I fully agree that the 64bn cost of the banking crisis is sickening.

    And I agree with doing anything and everything to reduce that cost.

    I agree that PS pensions are too generous, and I have repeatedly called for larger cuts to PS pensions.

    Although most SW rates have been cut twice, I would go further and abolish JSA and OPF payments.

    Great so how can you make a comment saying people will not be paying for water twice when we are paying over the odds for all of the above as I say just cut the waste out of expenditure and use some of it to cover water.


  • Options
    #86
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #87
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    fliball123 wrote: »
    just cut the waste out of expenditure and use some of it to cover water.

    If only that had been thought of before.

    What is wasted?


  • Options
    #88
    chopper6
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,214 ✭✭✭chopper6


    fliball123 wrote: »
    ..You work hard, educate yourself and get a better job all of a sudden the reward is no where near what it should be

    As a PS worker I agree.


  • Options
    #89
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,105 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Great so how can you make a comment saying people will not be paying for water twice when we are paying over the odds for all of the above as I say just cut the waste out of expenditure and use some of it to cover water.


    Fair enough, you propose that we continue to use general taxation to cover the costs of water.

    And you suggest further cuts to public spending, especially of wasteful spending. [I agree here]


    My only point is this: if we switch from taxpayer-financed water to paying for water with direct charges, we would not be paying twice.

    Now, you might expect our taxes to fall, as they no longer have to cover the costs of water.

    Yes, in normal times, but not with a 5bn+ deficit.

    What will fall is not your taxes, but the deficit.


  • Options
    #90
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Geuze wrote: »
    Fair enough, you propose that we continue to use general taxation to cover the costs of water.

    And you suggest further cuts to public spending, especially of wasteful spending. [I agree here]


    My only point is this: if we switch from taxpayer-financed water to paying for water with direct charges, we would not be paying twice.

    Now, you might expect our taxes to fall, as they no longer have to cover the costs of water.

    Yes, in normal times, but not with a 5bn+ deficit.

    What will fall is not your taxes, but the deficit.

    You make a good argument but with the amount of taxes paid in this country water should be covered..Its that simple. There are double taxation going on all through this economy and it needs to be stopped.

    Examples such as buying a car, you buy the car you pay VAT, you then have to pay Car tax and tax on petrol through the nose, not to mention the scam that is NCTs.

    If you pay car tax it should cover all of the above end of story.

    If you pay income tax it should cover a decent level of service. Do we get that in this country, answer is no we dont. An example is a visit to your hospital if you don't work you don't pay if you work you have to pay again and pay for the lad who is not working. Double taxation.

    the problem with introducing water charges is eventually those on the lower end will not have to pay them leaving the income tax payer having to pay it.

    The best solution for this gov is to go through spending and cut the fat out and use it to bridge the deficit. We pay more than enough taxes for the sh1tty services we receive


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    hatchman
    Registered Users Posts: 317 ✭✭hatchman


    fliball123 wrote: »
    You make a good argument but with the amount of taxes paid in this country water should be covered..Its that simple.

    I don't and there are many who don't get water supplied in this country so why should we pay in our taxes for water to be supplied to others ! I then have to pay to keep my private water supply and in tax pay for others to get theirs.


Advertisement