protest water charges but not property charges??

ThisRegard

renegademaster wrote: »

but it has taken a combination of it all to unite us, no populism about it, this is just the final straw with everyone.

But you're not speaking for everyone, "we're" not all united. Newly elected TD Paul Murphy was on the Last Word yesterday evening and he made himself, quite frankly, sound like an idiot when it came being asked for actual facts and figures, not this "All us ordinary wurkers are united in this" populist rubbish.

renegademaster

ThisRegard wrote: »

But you're not speaking for everyone, "we're" not all united. Newly elected TD Paul Murphy was on the Last Word yesterday evening and he made himself, quite frankly, sound like an idiot when it came being asked for actual facts and figures, not this "All us ordinary wurkers are united in this" populist rubbish.

go back to sheep!

ThisRegard

renegademaster wrote: »

go back to sheep!

Wow, these type of responses are getting easier to come across. It's almost as if you all have been assimilated into providing the same idiotic response when you're actually challenged on something.

Debate or discussion too difficult without a prompt card or facebook page ?

homerjay2005

maybe the majority of the people protesting are not house owners or have their houses paid for by the state, so dont have to pay property charges?

renegademaster

ThisRegard wrote: »

Wow, these type of responses are getting easier to come across. It's almost as if you all have been assimilated into providing the same idiotic response when you're actually challenged on something.

Debate or discussion too difficult without a prompt card or facebook page ?

no, this is an auto response when i come across people intent on doing damage to anything different. if these people were as quick to jump down the neck of those imposing the hardships and not those rising up and trying to change the system for the better of everyone the whole country would be better off. again. baaaaaaaaaaa

seamus

renegademaster wrote: »

no, this is an auto response when i come across people intent on doing damage to anything different. if these people were as quick to jump down the neck of those imposing the hardships and not those rising up and trying to change the system for the better of everyone the whole country would be better off. again. baaaaaaaaaaa

When you start insulting people rather than actually debating the issue, it becomes pretty clear that you've lost or you don't understand your own argument well enough to defend it.

Ironically, the protestors are in fact the ones who are resisting change and jumping down the necks of those attempting to change the system for the better.

Water charges are a better system than what we have at present. They move the cost of water provision to the user of that provision and put the water infrastructure into the hands of a national authority who will have both the power and the obligation to improve the infrastructure for all people.

Yet those protesting would rather higher taxes and a shoddy water infrastructure. Turkeys protesting in favour of Xmas.

ThisRegard

renegademaster wrote: »

no, this is an auto response when i come across people intent on doing damage to anything different. if these people were as quick to jump down the neck of those imposing the hardships and not those rising up and trying to change the system for the better of everyone the whole country would be better off. again. baaaaaaaaaaa

I've genuinely no idea what you're exactly trying to say here.

But I think you might be trying to say that not paying for essential services, freeing up money to go elsewhere in the state, makes the country a better place ?

the_syco

renegademaster wrote: »

trying to change the system for the better of everyone the whole country would be better off. again. baaaaaaaaaaa

Actually, the only people better off would be those not paying tax on the hours they worked, and those that have worked have their tax increased.

Have you considered that you are a sheep to the nice sounding soundbites, as opposed to opening your eyes to the harsh reality that the money will come from somewhere regardless?

listermint

seamus wrote: »

Your tax is being calculated wrong.

There is no way you can have a net tax liability of €4,500 a year and only come home with €300 in your hand.

Granted, you're getting less hours now, but if that's the kind of work you have, you should be budgeting accordingly for drops in income. If you've paid €3k in tax already this year, that means you earned on average €550/week up to now (assuming you're PAYE).

Look, water charges are simple: You either pay for your water directly and get a better standard of water, or you have your income tax raised to pay for the same sh1te standard of water we've had for the last 40 years.

Your choice.

dont try to simplify it with nonsense that you have nothing to back up those comments on. There is absolutely NOTHING to indicate water quality or service will increase with its move into private hands. NOTHING.

So stop trying to 'simplify' things for 'simple' people. throw away comments like that nonsense mean nothing in reality.

listermint

seamus wrote: »

When you start insulting people rather than actually debating the issue, it becomes pretty clear that you've lost or you don't understand your own argument well enough to defend it.

Ironically, the protestors are in fact the ones who are resisting change and jumping down the necks of those attempting to change the system for the better.

Water charges are a better system than what we have at present. They move the cost of water provision to the user of that provision and put the water infrastructure into the hands of a national authority who will have both the power and the obligation to improve the infrastructure for all people.

Yet those protesting would rather higher taxes and a shoddy water infrastructure. Turkeys protesting in favour of Xmas.

Throughout the history of the state, Is there anything you can point to that is a shining example of what you have just said or is Irish Water another shining example of inept cronyism and literally farcical setup that is exemplified by its creation start to finish.


I take great offence with much of your so called debate and trying to simply matters for people here, When the facts of the matter is you have nothing to back up your statement. It has been demonstrated time and time and time again that irish water is full of Jobs for the boys, it has contractors for the boys and it had a serious attempt to exclude itself from the FOI act in this country.

Seamus, frankly i am disappointed that you firmly believe this company as it stands today is the answer to the ills we have in water infrastructure.

Im no lefty and im no righty, and i have no qualms in paying for water. But i will not pay Irish Water it is rotten to the core.

seamus

ozmo wrote: »

Just wondering - would threads or posts about Water protests be banned from discussing on this site?

Just- 100K+ people protesting in Dublin last week and more marches planned - all over other Irish web forums and usual social media and newspapers - only found some posts in the photography forums and this thread.

but near silence from RTE and very little debate here?

Very little debate here?

What do you think this thread is? And the other two threads on this forum? And the one on the politics forum?

One thing that you need to watch out for in your media & social media consumption is confirmation bias. If all of the people you know were at the march, then your facebook feed will be nothing but protests and from your point of view it looks like the world and their mother is up in arms about this.
By comparison, my feed is probably about one in ten people talking water metering, and even then I would say it's the "usual suspects" whom I expect to protest every charge without question. So from my point of view most people don't care about water charges except for a core group of career protesters.

The same lies true for the online news that you read and sites that your frequent; you're drawn to sources which more closely reflect your own personal feelings and tend to avoid ones which don't.

We're both wrong of course; there's an actual number of people for whom this is an important issue. But our individual online habits have skewed our perception of what this number actually is and made it look like it's more/less than it actually is.

seamus

listermint wrote: »

Throughout the history of the state, Is there anything you can point to that is a shining example of what you have just said or is Irish Water another shining example of inept cronyism and literally farcical setup that exemplified by its creation start to finish.

National Roads Authority.

Seamus, frankly i am disappointed that you firmly believe this company as it stands today is the answer to the ills we have in water infrastructure.

I never said it was the answer to all ills, and certainly there are plenty of questions about its inception. But at the moment is the better solution, and since we're already 90% down the road of setting this whole thing up, it makes more sense to finish this out and then hang those who filled their troughs, then to rip up what's been down and flush all of the money already spent down the toilet.

Those arguing that Irish Water shouldn't exist because it cost so much to set up is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

listermint

seamus wrote: »

National Roads Authority.

Is this the Same NRA that presided over the building of a Toll Bridge which cost an absolute 'fraction' of what we could have built it for ourselves. and sold it off to a PPP. the same bridge which was obsolete within a few years and then required a secondary bridge to be built again at farcical contract terms.

The same bridge which caused toll gate backlogs for years and was finally fitted with an open toll gantry system. and the same NRA who are still paying that same owners money back on the sale.

that NRA ?

Or is it some other NRA ? unsure..

seamus

listermint wrote: »

Is this the Same NRA that presided over the building of a Toll Bridge which cost an absolute 'fraction' of what we could have built it for ourselves. and sold it off to a PPP. the same bridge which was obsolete within a few years and then required a secondary bridge to be built again at farcical contract terms.

The same bridge which caused toll gate backlogs for years and was finally fitted with an open toll gantry system. and the same NRA who are still paying that same owners money back on the sale.

that NRA ?

Or is it some other NRA ? unsure..

Ah, the old "no true scotsman" fallacy.

Find me an example of anything anywhere in the world which has operated with absolute perfection.

Expecting me to provide an example of an authority which has never made a single mistake just goes to show how weak your argument is.

Anyone who would deny that the impact the NRA has made to quality of our road infrastructure during its existence is almost entirely beneficial (compared to what went before), is either living with their eyes closed or being deliberately argumentative. Explain to me how the NRA made the roads worse, or even explain to me how they made no difference at all.

Then give me a shining example of a country with decentralised and centrally tax-funded water provision.

Pinch Flat

listermint wrote: »

There is absolutely NOTHING to indicate water quality or service will increase with its move into private hands. NOTHING.

Really?

http://www.water.ie/news/proposed-capital-investme/

listermint

seamus wrote: »

National Roads Authority.
I never said it was the answer to all ills, and certainly there are plenty of questions about its inception. But at the moment is the better solution, and since we're already 90% down the road of setting this whole thing up, it makes more sense to finish this out and then hang those who filled their troughs, then to rip up what's been down and flush all of the money already spent down the toilet.

Those arguing that Irish Water shouldn't exist because it cost so much to set up is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I dont think any legitimate people are arguing that Seamus, frankly even Sinn Fein were for an Irish Water of some description.

But why should we not 'hang people out to dry' excuse the pun.

Why was the CEO chosen, with such a poor current (not historical) track record.

why were managers picked up from retirement from several countys again with massive holes in their planned budgets and failed projects left behind.

And jesus christ if you cant ask questions about Site Serv well there is something missing.

listermint

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Really?

http://www.water.ie/news/proposed-capital-investme/

Did you just link a proposed market speel !?!?

REALLY!

is that what you linked ?

Do you want me to pull our proposals and mandates pre-election from FG and Labour , both whom i voted for.

Is that what you would like ?

listermint

seamus wrote: »

Ah, the old "no true scotsman" fallacy.

Find me an example of anything anywhere in the world which has operated with absolute perfection.

Expecting me to provide an example of an authority which has never made a single mistake just goes to show how weak your argument is.

Anyone who would deny that the impact the NRA has made to quality of our road infrastructure during its existence is almost entirely beneficial (compared to what went before), is either living with their eyes closed or being deliberately argumentative. Explain to me how the NRA made the roads worse, or even explain to me how they made no difference at all.

Then give me a shining example of a country with decentralised and centrally tax-funded water provision.

I am sorry Seamus, you specifically indicated that by putting the infrastructure into Irish Waters hands that it would solve the problems. If that is not what you said then retract your original 'to put it simply' condescending post.

Pinch Flat

listermint wrote: »

Did you just link a proposed market speel !?!?

REALLY!

is that what you linked ?

Do you want me to pull our proposals and mandates pre-election from FG and Labour , both whom i voted for.

Is that what you would like ?

Why don't you post a coherent alternative plan for raising the €1.77 billion required to repair a chronically underfunded and antiquated system. While you're at it, the further several billion required to fund the system for future expansion beyond 2016.

If you do so you'll be the first anti-water charge protestor to do so - all others I've engaged with on social media have failed to do so.

seamus

listermint wrote: »

But why should we not 'hang people out to dry' excuse the pun.

I didn't say we shouldn't.
And while plenty of people are incensed about that, the majority are protesting water charges because they don't want to pay. I don't see anybody specifically protesting about how IW was set up, just protesting because it was set up.

I am sorry Seamus, you specifically indicated that by putting the infrastructure into Irish Waters hands that it would solve the problems. If that is not what you said then retract your original 'to put it simply' condescending post.

"Specifically". Look up the meaning of that word. I didn't specifically say anything. I pointed out that IW will have both the power and the mandate (enforced by the CER) to improve the infrastructure on a national scale, which is the better of the two solutions on the table.

I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing here. You seem to think that because we're unable to use a crystal ball to look into the future, then we shouldn't do anything, lest nothing improves.

listermint

seamus wrote: »

I didn't say we shouldn't.
And while plenty of people are incensed about that, the majority are protesting water charges because they don't want to pay. I don't see anybody specifically protesting about how IW was set up, just protesting because it was set up.

You are wrong, plenty wrong. Many have pointed to those specific reasons for their protest at paying and to be quite frank anyone i have talked to on the subject point to those specific reasons. But it is alot easier for you and fellow pro charges folks to point to the looney left and the 'dole' classes as being unreasonable in the whole matter.

Pinch Flat

listermint wrote: »

Is this the Same NRA that presided over the building of a Toll Bridge which cost an absolute 'fraction' of what we could have built it for ourselves. and sold it off to a PPP. the same bridge which was obsolete within a few years and then required a secondary bridge to be built again at farcical contract terms.

The same bridge which caused toll gate backlogs for years and was finally fitted with an open toll gantry system. and the same NRA who are still paying that same owners money back on the sale.

that NRA ?

Or is it some other NRA ? unsure..

We talking about the m50 toll bridge? That was built initially before the nra existed. A partnership between DCC and ntr (a PPP). I agree though the government at the time could have got a better deal on the concession when it came up for sale.

listermint

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Why don't you post a coherent alternative plan for raising the €1.77 billion required to repair a chronically underfunded and antqiquated system. While you're at it, the further several billion required to fund the system for future expansion beyond 2016.

If you do so you'll be the first anti-water charge protestor to do so - all others I've engaged with on social media have failed to do so.

Yes Pinch Flat, it was my assertion that the 1.77 Billion that was effectively siphoned off from the National Pension reserve fund should have gone into repairing the infrastructure (directly) , Not buying meters, not paying site serve or GMC to install metering. Actually creating IRISH jobs with IRISH national pension reserve fund.

Once that part was done or at least heavily progressed setup a fixed charge.


Is that not a legitmate response? would that not have given some good optics for a FG government. Are they all idiots ? I believe they are.

ThisRegard

listermint wrote: »

fellow pro charges folks to point to the looney left and the 'dole' classes as being unreasonable in the whole matter.

There's a big difference between "pro charge folks" and folks that understand why there's a need for them. Of course I'd rather they didn't have to exist, but I completely understand why they were brought in.

listermint

While i am at it, I think the only think the government can do at this stage is remove anyone attached to the project that is a shining example of all FG said they would not do when in government.

They have very poor PR advise and really really poor decision makers. I mean its just scandal after weekly scandal with them. And the media dont even have to look too deep for a fresh case of nepotism, croynism, bad appointments or suspect questions.

seamus

listermint wrote: »

You are wrong, plenty wrong. Many have pointed to those specific reasons for their protest at paying

And as I point out, that makes no logical sense.

If you want to protest about how Irish Water was set up, then you hit the politicians in the voting booth. Withholding payment is basically saying, "I'm protesting about how much money was wasted, by wasting even more money".

If you want to protest about having to pay water charges, then by all means withhold payment.

But don't conflate the two, they're separate issues.

Pinch Flat

listermint wrote: »

Yes Pinch Flat, it was my assertion that the 1.77 Billion that was effectively siphoned off from the National Pension reserve fund should have gone into repairing the infrastructure (directly) , Not buying meters, not paying site serve or GMC to install metering. Actually creating IRISH jobs with IRISH national pension reserve fund.

Once that part was done or at least heavily progressed setup a fixed charge.


Is that not a legitmate response? would that not have given some good optics for a FG government. Are they all idiots ? I believe they are.

the problem is funding or sources of it more importantly. Irish water have already been provided with a €0.5 billion fund in the form of a bridging loan until the additional funding and revenue stream (ie metering) comes on line. Just like any other start up utility company. Can you imagine the state of our www tribal and Gas infrastructure if it relies on piece meal and chronically underfunded sources?

Additional funding is also been provided by the European investment bank. The sums are huge to repair the system and expand it for future growth.

It is either paid for by tax hikes or water charges - it is as simple as that I'm afraid.

listermint

Pinch Flat wrote: »

the problem is funding or sources of it more importantly. Irish water have already been provided with a €0.5 billion fund in the form of a bridging loan until the additional funding and revenue stream (ie metering) comes on line. Just like any other start up utility company. Can you imagine the state of our www tribal and Gas infrastructure if it relies on piece meal and chronically underfunded sources?

Additional funding is also been provided by the European investment bank. The sums are huge to repair the system and expand it for future growth.

It is either paid for by tax hikes or water charges - it is as simple as that I'm afraid.

Metering was never really required. It was a scam ultimately. And will be scam to raise the pricing down the road at shareholders behest.

I dont agree that we could not have fixed the infrastruture at least major parts of it with that funding and then continued with some fixed charge into the future.

In this way the actual people using it Me and You can see that we have got value for money.

Current is beyond arse about face, and to be quite frank id prefer if it brought the government down. At least a lesson of respect to the people who put them there would be implied with that.

seamus

listermint wrote: »

Current is beyond arse about face, and to be quite frank id prefer if it brought the government down. At least a lesson of respect to the people who put them there would be implied with that.

You mean the people who agreed with them to introduce water charges and voted them in with that in their manifesto...?

ThisRegard

listermint wrote: »

Metering was never really required. It was a scam ultimately. And will be scam to raise the pricing down the road at shareholders behest.

It's a scam to pay for what you use ?