protest water charges but not property charges??

listermint

ThisRegard wrote: »

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

Its scam that it was about conservation and paying for what you use.

Yes that is my assertion.

ThisRegard

I don't know how anyone can agree with your assertion.

Should we also have a flat rate for electricity, gas and oil ?

listermint

seamus wrote: »

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

and you believe that the voters expected this ham fisted approach, is that really what you are implying ?

That we cannot expect a degree of standards and ethics applied to it. Of which we have seen frankly very little.

Ducking and Diving i would describe it as.

listermint

ThisRegard wrote: »

I don't know how anyone can agree with your assertion.

Should we also have a flat rate for electricity, gas and oil ?

That would infer that we have have been paying for electricity Gas and Oil via our general taxation (and advertised this as so in previous elections) . Would it not ?



Scam.

Yes.

Pinch Flat

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.

Have you thought about alerting every other eu and oecd country to this scam? I can see the headlines on Frankfurter Allgemeine already. "Irish solve world wide water crisis - stop charging for it". And yes iw will be bought and sold like other utility companies here and in other countries.

ThisRegard

listermint wrote: »

That would infer that we have have been paying for electricity Gas and Oil via our general taxation (and advertised this as so in previous elections) . Would it not ?



Scam.

Yes.

How have we being paying for our water through general taxation ?

listermint

ThisRegard wrote: »

How have we being paying for our water through general taxation ?

If i have to spell that out to you, you should ask your 'thanks' colleagues.

ThisRegard

listermint wrote: »

If i have to spell that out to you, you should ask your 'thanks' colleagues.

No, go ahead, don't back down and resort to childish name calling now.

Please explain how water has been paid for via general taxation.

listermint

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Have you thought about alerting every other eu and oecd country to this scam? I can see the headlines on Frankfurter Allgemeine already. "Irish solve world wide water crisis - stop charging for it". And yes iw will be bought and sold like other utility companies here and in other countries.

Why would i compare ourselves to some other countries in the world ? Can we not set our own social standards or is that something you have no interest in. It appears you are a free market addict, despite all the ills the free market affords to us where 'Social' matters are concerned. Would you not agree water infrastructure is something quite fundamental to the operation of our state.

Pinch Flat

listermint wrote: »

If i have to spell that out to you, you should ask your 'thanks' colleagues.

In fairness of the €1.2 billion spent on water annually (far below what is requires to maintain, repair and modernise the system), €200 m comes from direct taxation. The rest is from indirect taxes - motor tax, excise vat etc.

That said it is still way short of the money required to provide modern drinking water and sewage facilities (the charges are about water in and water out, so to speak)

listermint

ThisRegard wrote: »

No, go ahead, don't back down and resort to childish name calling now.

Please explain how water has been paid for via general taxation.

I did not call anyone any names!? weird one that.

Ask your buddy Simon Coveney about it. I am not doing your research for you. When you know all the answers already and are just beating around bush.

renegademaster

seamus wrote: »

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.

by voting them out after a full term so they ride off into the sunset with full pensions? that'll learn them alright :rolleyes:

listermint

Pinch Flat wrote: »

In fairness of the €1.2 billion spent on water annually (far below what is requires to maintain, repair and modernise the system), €200 m comes from direct taxation. The rest is from indirect taxes - motor tax, excise vat etc.

That said it is still way short of the money required to provide modern drinking water and sewage facilities (the charges are about water in and water out, so to speak)

ive addressed that already, no need to recycle it again.

ThisRegard

listermint wrote: »

I did not call anyone any names!? weird one that.

Ask your buddy Simon Coveney about it. I am not doing your research for you. When you know all the answers already and are just beating around bush.

"Thanks buddies".

Again, stop avoiding the question, you said water was already paid for by general taxation on this thread, not Simon Coveny or anyone else.

It's the basis of an argument you're trying to make, so stand by it and back up what you said.

listermint

renegademaster wrote: »

by voting them out after a full term so they ride off into the sunset with full pensions? that'll learn them alright :rolleyes:

See Seamus and the lads above love our system here where we vote the same edgits from the same parish and same inner circle and same familes over and over again. and get the same poxy results.

Sure thats the norm, that is the way it always has been. And Seamus is cool with that. We should not expect standards, ethics professionalism in office here. Its run of the mill. And sure lets compare ourselves to alot of other countries who managed to get it wrong too.

Same mistakes different suits.

Pinch Flat

listermint wrote: »

Would you not agree water infrastructure is something quite fundamental to the operation of our state.

Yes, I do. But it needs to be funded and paid for - properly. Other countries got their heads around this years ago. Hence they can use their beaches. Avoid boil notices and provide a supply that is free if cryptosporidium.

If you feel we can provide a world class infrastructure that is some how cost neutral and self financing, and also encourages water conservation in line with the eu directives, then go for it - other countries would love to hear from you.

listermint

ThisRegard wrote: »

"Thanks buddies".

Again, stop avoiding the question, you said water was already paid for by general taxation on this thread, not Simon Coveny or anyone else.

It's the basis of an argument you're trying to make, so stand by it and back up what you said.

Its hilarious that you cannot read what has been written before this post. but sure 'Disregard' it . It seem you have no regard for reading.

listermint

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Yes, I do. But it needs to be funded and paid for - properly. Other countries got their heads around this years ago. Hence they can use their beaches. Avoid boil notices and provide a supply that is free if cryptosporidium.

If you feel we can provide a world class infrastructure that is some how cost neutral and self financing, and also encourages water conservation in line with the eu directives, then go for it - other countries would love to hear from you.

You ignored my two responses to you on this. And again you are recycling youre same tired response. Please stop ignoring something i have already answered it just makes you look like you are not paying attention.

ThisRegard

listermint wrote: »

Its hilarious that you cannot read what has been written before this post. but sure 'Disregard' it . It seem you have no regard for reading.

This is worse than the time Jeremy Paxman tried to get an answer out of Michael Howard.

So you're unwilling to stand by your argument with facts ?

listermint

Anyway, tbh this thread i think has been answered and it being dragged way off the OP post.

OP i think people are miffed at a new additional charge and its the straw that pushed it over the edge.


There is my answer, i wont be back to respond as it will get dragged further off into the distance. (probably belongs on the other central thread tbh)

listermint

ThisRegard wrote: »

This is worse than the time Jeremy Paxman tried to get an answer out of Michael Howard.

So you're unwilling to stand by your argument with facts ?

knock yourself out beautiful

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92606182&postcount=71


Im out.

ThisRegard

listermint wrote: »

i wont be back to respond as it will get dragged further off into the distance. (probably belongs on the other central thread tbh)

So no answer then, just sound bites thrown about with nothing to back them up.

Pinch Flat

listermint wrote: »

Why would i compare ourselves to some other countries in the world ?.

.

Good question. I'm assuming we use water just like every other country that charges for it?

listermint wrote: »

Can we not set our own social standards or is that something you have no interest in. It appears you are a free market addict, despite all the ills the free market affords to us where 'Social' matters are concerned. Would you not agree water infrastructure is something quite fundamental to the operation of our state.

social standards? You mean one that discourages wastage and instills the 'polluter pays' principle? Maybe everyone else is doing it wrong and we Irish have a better way.

Again if you have a way of self financing the system and discouraging over use, please let us know

Pinch Flat

listermint wrote: »

Anyway, tbh this thread i think has been answered and it being dragged way off the OP post.

OP i think people are miffed at a new additional charge and its the straw that pushed it over the edge.


There is my answer, i wont be back to respond as it will get dragged further off into the distance. (probably belongs on the other central thread tbh)

See the thing is I fundamentally disagree with other charges levied on the country. So property tax, usc and cuts in welfare, education and healthcare. I took a stand on my own property tax demand but was threatened with court action and additional fines, some of which I paid. I didn't have the appetite for hiring a senior counsel at a few grand a day to argue a point on my behalf in the high court.

On water, I have no fundamental issue paying for it. It was the case when I lived in the uk and Germany. So no big deal for me personally. Sometimes you'll come across someone who has a different opinion.

Rubberchikken

these charges seem to mbe standard in other countries, and germany is powerful enough to make little enda bend down and take the beating.
we can't say no to europe. we don't have any power whatsoever,.

against these charges. water charge/irish water - totally ill thought out.
a property charge on a house that we borrowed for and completely paid back - beyond unfair.

i'm glad i wasn't able to vote when this country decided to join europe.

Pinch Flat

Rubberchikken wrote: »

these charges seem to mbe standard in other countries, and germany is powerful enough to make little enda bend down and take the beating.
we can't say no to europe. we don't have any power whatsoever,.

against these charges. water charge/irish water - totally ill thought out.
a property charge on a house that we borrowed for and completely paid back - beyond unfair.

i'm glad i wasn't able to vote when this country decided to join europe.

What intrigues me is that there have been very little protest against down right unfair and perhaps immoral burdens places on the country.

When Europeans see protesting against water charges which exist in every other eu and oecd country I'm not sue what message that portrays? We're happy enough to be shafted by bond holders but cry foul when asked to pay for water.

Pinch Flat

listermint wrote: »

ive addressed that already, no need to recycle it again.

No you haven't. You indicated the €1.77 billion should come from the pension reserve - €0.5billion came in the form of a loan.

You failed to provide a plan for coming up with the rest of this funding required for current repairs and beyond 2016 to expand the system.

The whole point of iw is to take the funding "off balance sheet".

renegademaster

Pinch Flat wrote: »

What intrigues me is that there have been very little protest against down right unfair and perhaps immoral burdens places on the country.

When Europeans see protesting against water charges which exist in every other eu and oecd country I'm not sue what message that portrays? We're happy enough to be shafted by bond holders but cry foul when asked to pay for water.

well ya see it's not just about the water, sure people are protesting against the water charges but believe me it's a combination of every unfair decision take for the Irish people that has united people now

crannglas

Wasn't there protests against property charges over half country wouldn't pay, and they robbed it from their wages etc..

yourdeadwright

Im another who can't work out why so many people complain about water charges, but getting charged for property you have already paid thousands for is ok