Water meter protests

Lemlin

Tony EH wrote: »

No, I didn't, you were just unable to pick it up.

IT WILL STILL BE UNFAIR.

Hold back from the caps locks there Lone Ranger.

I asked about the present system. You are typing in the future tense - "It will still be". I'm not asking about the future.

You still haven't answered with a "yes or no" response so I'll ask again:

Is the present water system, where no direct water charges are paid by urban dwellers, not grossly unfair on rural people who pay direct water charges plus for water through their taxes?

Tony EH

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It has been free since the water charges where withdrawn and has been funded by the budget surplus. This is no longer possible so it must be charged for again, and on a much fairer basis.

No, it hasn't. It's been paid for through taxation.

That's not free.

:rolleyes:

end of the road

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It has been free since the water charges where withdrawn and has been funded by the budget surplus. This is no longer possible so it must be charged for again, and on a much fairer basis.

if the tax pays for it, then its not free, your paying for it, just doing so via a general tax, i get free water myself via my well and my pump from my land, some people out the country are the same, others are not

Tony EH

Lemlin wrote: »

Hold back from the caps locks there Lone Ranger.

I asked about the present system. You are typing in the future tense - "It will still be". I'm not asking about the future.

You still haven't answered with a "yes or no" response so I'll ask again:

Is the present water system, where no direct water charges are paid by urban dwellers, not grossly unfair on rural people who pay direct water charges plus for water through their taxes?

You seem to be having trouble with English.

"Still" would imply a situation that is or will be maintained.

Perhaps you're just too bitter about you're own circumstance in this regard to understand.

Be careful of bitterness.

allibastor

Deleted User wrote: »

I've been kinda following the story about the water meter protests on & off for a few weeks now via the Dublin says no facebook page (looks like there's trouble in Raheny today with the Gardaí there).

I can't say I'm a big fan of another bill but it's very clear that we are going to be paying for water next year no matter what.

I admire the dedication of the people who've been out protesting everyday but I can't help but wonder if their actions won't inevitably help increase the water charges. Irish water have contractors working for them & the workers will get paid regardless of weather they install no meters or 10 meters a day. The longer the protesters block work, the longer Irish water will need to keep the contractors on the payroll & you can guarantee that cost will be passed on in the long run.

What do other people think about the protests?

If you wish to cause trouble with the meter systems, just put a small pin prick in the pipework before your meter, let the water leak a bit and then ring them to say its in wrong.

Uriel.

Tony EH wrote: »

No, it hasn't. It's been paid for through taxation.

Not nearly enough.

Lemlin

Tony EH wrote: »

You seem to be having trouble with English.

"Still" would imply a situation that is or will be maintained.

Perhaps you're just too bitter about you're own circumstance in this regard to understand.

Be careful of bitterness.

It's more the word "will" I was referring to.

will - used to express futurity

And the question remains:

You still haven't answered with a "yes or no" response so I'll ask again:

Is the present water system, where no direct water charges are paid by urban dwellers, not grossly unfair on rural people who pay direct water charges plus for water through their taxes?

This must be my fourth time asking the question so I'm not sure how I am the one having a problem with understanding. It's a simple two line question that you have continued to refuse to answer.

You're actually reminding me of the politicians that you are so keen to lambast.

Daith

Uriel. wrote: »

Not nearly enough.

We still pay for it.

DCC lost 90m or there about on the failed Poolbeg Incinerator project. Pity that couldn't have gone to the water infrastructure huh? Cos they've spent 130 million on that in a year.

allibastor

allibastor wrote: »

If you wish to cause trouble with the meter systems, just put a small pin prick in the pipework before your meter, let the water leak a bit and then ring them to say its in wrong.

What would be the point in that?

Uriel.

Daith wrote: »

We still pay for it.

DCC lost 90m or there about on the failed Poolbeg Incinerator project. Pity that couldn't have gone to the water infrastructure huh? Cos they've spent 130 million on that in a year.

Pop into HMV someday and give them €10 for €30 boxset and see how they react to the assertion that you "still pay for it".

Tony EH

Lemlin wrote: »

It's more the word "will" I was referring to.

will - used to express futurity

And the question remains:

You still haven't answered with a "yes or no" response so I'll ask again:

Is the present water system, where no direct water charges are paid by urban dwellers, not grossly unfair on rural people who pay direct water charges plus for water through their taxes?

This must be my fourth time asking the question so I'm not sure how I am the one having a problem with understanding. It's a simple two line question that you have continued to refuse to answer.

You're actually reminding me of the politicians that you are so keen to lambast.

I'm not going to dumb down the response for you. You have your answer.

Daith

Uriel. wrote: »

Pop into HMV someday and give them €10 for €30 boxset and see how they react to the assertion that you "still pay for it".

That's a rubbish argument. It's up the Government and the councils to decide how to spend tax money and manage their budget. If they didn't spend enough and can lose 90 million on ineptitude it ain't the tax payers fault.

Little CuChulainn

Tony EH wrote: »

No, it hasn't. It's been paid for through taxation.

That's not free.

:rolleyes:

Right. So how much do you pay for your water at the moment? How much of your tax bill goes to water services? The problem with your argument is that we don't have a hypothecated tax system. When water charges were abolished the tax rate didn't go up proportionally to cover it. Similarly when they are reintroduced the tax rate won't go down proportionally. Things like water are paid for out of a surplus, which is why it's only free in the good times. That's why people don't pay more or less depending on their usage.

You are assuming that your income tax paid for the water but you don't know that. Taxes on wages aren't the sole source of income for a government. It's more likely that corporation tax or capital gains tax paid for water since it was last abolished as these are the areas where more money has been coming in.

Daith

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You are assuming that your income tax paid for the water but you don't know that. Taxes on wages aren't the sole source of income for a government. It's more likely that corporation tax or capital gains tax paid for water since it was last abolished as these are the areas where more money has been coming in.

That's not how it works. All money comes in from various sources. You can't make an argument that no tax money is spent on water.

Tony EH

Uriel. wrote: »

Pop into HMV someday and give them €10 for €30 boxset and see how they react to the assertion that you "still pay for it".

10 Euro would be enough to cover the cost of said boxset.

The extra money would be HMV's mark up for profit.

Are you saying that Irish people should pay over the odds for their water to a private company, to secure the profit margin of that company.

Mmmmmmmmm...

:pac:

Lemlin

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm not going to dumb down the response for you. You have your answer.

No I don't. You're still skirting around the issue because you have no response. I also asked for a simple "yes or no" answer.

The present system has rural dwellers paying twice by your reckoning - once through taxes and once through direct charges.

Urban dwellers only pay through their taxes so pay once.

So it is unfair that one group pay twice while the other group only pay once.

You know that and that is why you refuse to answer a simple question about it.

Is the present water system, where no direct water charges are paid by urban dwellers, not grossly unfair on rural people who pay direct water charges plus for water through their taxes?

Uriel.

Daith wrote: »

That's a rubbish argument. It's up the Government and the councils to decide how to spend tax money and manage their budget. If they didn't spend enough and can lose 90 million on ineptitude it ain't the tax payers fault.

Perhaps we should just scrap water charges then and reduce social welfare and increase general taxation? would you be happier with that?

Uriel.

Tony EH wrote: »

10 Euro would be enough to cover the cost of said boxset.

The extra money would be HMV's mark up for profit.

Are you saying that Irish people should pay over the odds for their water to a private company, to secure the profit margin of that company.

Mmmmmmmmm...

:pac:

I am sorry, what private company are you talking about?

Will you be happy when budget 2016 doubles the headline rate of unemployment benefit and increasing the 20% tax band to 25%?

Daith

Uriel. wrote: »

Perhaps we should just scrap water charges then and reduce social welfare and increase general taxation? would you be happier with that?

Or maybe we should have fired incompetent people who work in local councils who waste money and we wouldn't have had to?

Little CuChulainn

Daith wrote: »

That's not how it works. All money comes in from various sources. You can't make an argument that no tax money is spent on water.

It is more likely that the abolition of water charges was offset by increasing capital gains and corporation tax. But i agree, in absence of a hypothecated tax system you cannot know. But if you are going to argue that your tax pays for your water then you have to accept that your contribution is so small in the grand scheme of things you are really getting it for free.

Tony EH

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Right. So how much do you pay for your water at the moment? How much of your tax bill goes to water services? The problem with your argument is that we don't have a hypothecated tax system.

My objection is that I don't want to be paying for the same thing twice and I don't want to be at the whim of a private enterprise, holding the citizens of the country to ransom over something as essential as water distribution.

I would agree with re: accountability on our tax monies, and have stated as much in a previous post.

But that is a call for better transparency...not another bill for already hard-pressed people to fork out for.

darkpagandeath

Uriel. wrote: »

Perhaps we should just scrap water charges then and reduce social welfare and increase general taxation? would you be happier with that?

What's that got to do with water charges ? They were introduced via the Troika, Sw is going down year on year as people get slowly back to work. The water charges will still be here when we have most people back to work. Same with the other new taxes and tax hikes all to bring us inline with Europe apparently, Even though if we were actually inline with the EU we would be paying less on most taxes

Lemlin

Tony EH wrote: »

My objection is that I don't want to be paying for the same thing twice and I don't want to be at the whim of a private enterprise, holding the citizens of the country to ransom over something as essential as water distribution.

But it's fine for people in rural areas to pay twice under the current scheme?

Daith

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It is more likely that the abolition of water charges was offset by increasing capital gains and corporation tax. But i agree, in absence of a hypothecated tax system you cannot know. But if you are going to argue that your tax pays for your water then you have to accept that your contribution is so small in the grand scheme of things you are really getting it for free.

You're contradicting yourself here.

We are paying for water. Not enough sure but we are paying.

Uriel.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What's that got to do with water charges ? They were introduced via the Troika, Sw is going down year on year as people get slowly back to work. The water charges will still be here when we have most people back to work. Same with the other new taxes and tax hikes all to bring us inline with Europe apparently, Even though if we were actually inline with the EU we would be paying less on most taxes

Water Charges are predominately an obligation under EU law, as you know.

The idea is to move away from general taxation and develop a more sustainable tax base, therefore yes, such charges are here for the long-haul and in time, general taxation rates will fall, where appropriate.

darkpagandeath

Lemlin wrote: »

But it's fine for people in rural areas to pay twice under the current scheme?

They did not think it through, Eu said water charges government went ok give as many people we can a meter then bill the rest on some mythical number. Sure if your rich with kids you get the same breaks as a poor person that’s less able to pay. I may actually do better out of having the flat charge being in an apartment it seems now.

Uriel. wrote: »

Water Charges are predominately an obligation under EU law, as you know.

The idea is to move away from general taxation and develop a more sustainable tax base, therefore yes, such charges are here for the long-haul and in time, general taxation rates will fall, where appropriate.

Not they will not history has shown us utility prices go up, were are paying over Celtic tiger prices now. And your dreaming if you think the government will reduce the tax intake...

Uriel.

Daith wrote: »

Or maybe we should have fired incompetent people who work in local councils who waste money and we wouldn't have had to?

or both? are deficit will not be cleared by simply sacking people.

Daith

Uriel. wrote: »

or both? are deficit will not be cleared by simply sacking people.

No clearly. We don't sack people responsible for losing millions. We make them chief of Irish Water

Lemlin

darkpagandeath wrote: »

They did not think it through, Eu said water charges government went ok give as many people we can a meter then bill the rest on some mythical number. Sure if your rich with kids you get the same breaks as a poor person that’s less able to pay. I may actually do better out of having the flat charge being in an apartment it seems now.

Your response has nothing to do with my point. As I've stated above, people in rural areas currently pay twice for water - once through their taxes and again through their own direct water charges from their Group water scheme.

People in urban areas only pay once at present through their taxes. The water charge balances this out and ensure all dwellers pay directly for their own usage.

Daith

Lemlin wrote: »

The water charge balances this out and ensure all dwellers pay directly for their own usage.

Only if you're metered.