Why we worry more about water charges than USC?

melissak

alias no.9 wrote: »

Water may fall out of the sky but it takes a lot more to treat it and distribute it to houses in a manner that ensures it flows when you turn on the tap, even if all the neighbours turn on the tap at the same time.

Irish Water may be a shambles but if you want to trot out the falls from the sky nonsense, just stick a bucket in your backyard and collect it and you'll never have to pay water charges.

I already do for the garden and toilet etc thanks for the advice. Country people already pay for water. If pointing out that a large proportion of the world population depend upon water that falls out of the sky, and Ireland is hardly an arid desert is trotting nonsense then so be it.

Galwayguy35

newport2 wrote: »

Because Revenue collect USC. If USC was presented as a bill there would have been a lot of noise about it.

I also think a lot of people protesting don't have an issue paying for water, they just have an issue paying for Irish Water.

Maybe but I'd bet any money the numbskulls you see swarming around Murphy and Collins when they appear on television don't want to pay for anything.

alias no.9

melissak wrote: »

I already do for the garden and toilet etc thanks for the advice. Country people already pay for water. If pointing out that a large proportion of the world population depend upon water that falls out of the sky, and Ireland is hardly an arid desert is trotting nonsense then so be it.

We have ample water falling from the sky. Anybody in Ireland wishing to substitute their existing mains water supply with rainwater collection is free to do so.

The collection, storage, treatment and distribution of water is what costs money. Ask any of the people around the world who depend on collection of rain water if they'd like water on demand and they'll jump at the opportunity.

Mentioning water falling from the sky in the context of paying for mains water supply (regardless of whether it's paid for through fixed charges, usage charges or general taxation) is entirely spurious.

melissak

alias no.9 wrote: »

We have ample water falling from the sky. Anybody in Ireland wishing to substitute their existing mains water supply with rainwater collection is free to do so.

The collection, storage, treatment and distribution of water is what costs money. Ask any of the people around the world who depend on collection of rain water if they'd like water on demand and they'll jump at the opportunity.

Mentioning water falling from the sky in the context of paying for mains water supply (regardless of whether it's paid for through fixed charges, usage charges or general taxation) is entirely spurious.

You can store water in a tank you know. There are many "water on demand" rainwater systems. Sophisticated systems too, not ramshackle at all, though simple systems work just as well. It is becoming huge in places where water is scarce resource but should be more popular here too.

alias no.9

melissak wrote: »

You can store water in a tank you know. There are many "water on demand" rainwater systems. Sophisticated systems too, not ramshackle at all, though simple systems work just as well. It is becoming huge in places where water is scarce resource but should be more popular here too.

The point is that people are free to chose not to have mains water and substitute it with whatever system they want. Once you chose a mains water supply however, it costs money and the fact that water falls from the sky doesn't make the cost go away, so in the context of paying for mains water, its entirely irrelevant.

trashcan

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Because - anti water crowd are idiots.

I agree. Anyone who is anti water is just stupid. I find it comes in very handy myself

Jack Killian

alias no.9 wrote: »

The point is that people are free to chose not to have mains water and substitute it with whatever system they want. Once you chose a mains water supply however, it costs money and the fact that water falls from the sky doesn't make the cost go away, so in the context of paying for mains water, its entirely irrelevant.

In the context where we always paid for mains water, and some of us even for group scheme water, IW is irrelevant too.

melissak

alias no.9 wrote: »

The point is that people are free to chose not to have mains water and substitute it with whatever system they want. Once you chose a mains water supply however, it costs money and the fact that water falls from the sky doesn't make the cost go away, so in the context of paying for mains water, its entirely irrelevant.

I am not discussing it in the context of paying for mains water but in the context of privatising our water resources. I was questioning the logic of gifting to private interests the right to charge us for something that falls from the sky 364 days a year, that we will literally die without, given how successful previous privatising of state resources have been.

Curly Judge

melissak wrote: »

I am not discussing it in the context of paying for mains water but in the context of privatising our water resources. I was questioning the logic of gifting to private interests the right to charge us for something that falls from the sky 364 days a year, that we will literally die without, given how successful previous privatising of state resources have been.

Where does this idea, that we are about to privatise IW, come from?
Other than from mischievous charlatans who raise it as a bogyman to lure gullible fence sitters into a false ferment?

Jack Killian

Curly Judge wrote: »

Where does this idea, that we are about to privatise IW, come from?
Other than from mischievous charlatans who raise it as a bogyman to lure gullible fence sitters into a false ferment?

Or the government that refused to legislate against it ?

Curly Judge

Jack Killian wrote: »

Or the government that refused to legislate against it ?

They haven't Promised to hold a referendum on the sale of fresh air either!
Which, of course, automatically means they are about to privatise it?

melissak

Curly Judge wrote: »

They haven't Promised to hold a referendum on the sale of fresh air either!
Which, of course, automatically means they are about to privatise it?

Is that in the pipe line? It would be about as logical!

melissak

Curly Judge wrote: »

Where does this idea, that we are about to privatise IW, come from?
Other than from mischievous charlatans who raise it as a bogyman to lure gullible fence sitters into a false ferment?

Why do we need iw? What are the taxes already paid for? Why is there new tax after new tax with no improvement in services?

Sam Kade

PancakeJOE wrote: »

Scrap property tax and charge everyone a universal utility bill lets say 500 euro to provide bin collection and water,Then divert the USC to social housing and the HSE for a fixed number of years until it can be scrapped.

Great idea and people with private wells can also pay for water they don't get :rolleyes:

Jack Killian

Curly Judge wrote: »

They haven't Promised to hold a referendum on the sale of fresh air either!
Which, of course, automatically means they are about to privatise it?

Any chance you'd compare like with like ? Y'know - something that they're actually sending us bills for ?

Pinch Flat

I find the usc a most unjust and severe tax - because there's no relief against it is very draconian.

I equally found property tax extremely unfair - when we bought our house we paid close to €30k in stamp duty for absolutely nothing - a transaction tax in effect. Now we are expected (and are) paying again.

Both the above are far more unjust than the principle if paying for water used. Yes it's not eloquently implemented and linking it to motor tax and vat is another laughable hang up from a previous government.

ZeroThreat

smash wrote: »

In a few years people will be paying around €350 month to cover electricity, gas or oil, water and propert tax.

hmmm, I think we already pay vat on leccy, gas and oil.

ZeroThreat

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I find the usc a most unjust and severe tax - because there's no relief against it is very draconian.

I equally found property tax extremely unfair - when we bought our house we paid close to €30k in stamp duty for absolutely nothing - a transaction tax in effect. Now we are expected (and are) paying again.

Both the above are far more unjust than the principle if paying for water used. Yes it's not eloquently implemented and linking it to motor tax and vat is another laughable hang up from a previous government.

Pinch, if USC were abolished now, it would open up a big black deficit hole in the budget.

Jack Killian

Sam Kade wrote: »

Great idea and people with private wells can also pay for water they don't get :rolleyes:

No change there then; either pre or post IW

catbear

Water charges? USC? what about the eefing waste of space that's the TV license?

F fek sake it's a lot more than the average water charge!

Jack Killian

catbear wrote: »

Water charges? USC? what about the eefing waste of space that's the TV license?

F fek sake it's a lot more than the average water charge!

What ? €166 vs €260 ?

hatrickpatrick

powerstar wrote: »

We are paying more for USC than water charges. Water charges are only 160 or 260 per but most people pay over 1000 on USC per year.

Water charges are currently temporarily capped. When that cap is lifted, water charges are going to be far higher, and we need to get them abolished long before that has a chance to happen.

_CreeD_

The real threat of Irish Water isn't the current cost, I've lived in countries where I've paid for water before, it's the future when it is sold off to conglomerates that are already buying up water resources in multiple countries. The charge you pay then won't be for the cost of supplying water within Ireland, it'll be competing with what those countries already in chronic and worsening droughts will be willing to pay. This is already happening, it's not some wild conspiracy theory. If you want a western world example have a look at California, unbelievable drought restrictions and yet one of the biggest bottled water exporters in the US.

The USC, while a very underhanded tax increase, pales in comparison. Hence I (as someone who gets screwed by USC) will very much focus on Water over it.

Speedwell

_CreeD_ wrote: »

The real threat of Irish Water isn't the current cost, I've lived in countries where I've paid for water before, it's the future when it is sold off to conglomerates that are already buying up water resources in multiple countries. The charge you pay then won't be for the cost of supplying water within Ireland, it'll be competing with what those countries already in chronic and worsening droughts will be willing to pay. This is already happening, it's not some wild conspiracy theory. If you want a western world example have a look at California, unbelievable drought restrictions and yet one of the biggest bottled water exporters in the US.

The USC, while a very underhanded tax increase, pales in comparison. Hence I (as someone who gets screwed by USC) will very much focus on Water over it.

Oh, they export bottled water from Dubai. But there's a picture of Dubai in the dictionary next to the word "absurd".

And yes, I've lived in countries in which I paid for water as well, but based on the same usage or less here in Ireland, we pay far more here than we did there.

Subcomandante Marcos

The reason most people who refused to pay for water charges (more than 50% of homes at last check?) is because they realised it was nonsense. The costs of running the company tasked with collecting the revenue almost consumes the revenues collected, the company who won the tender to install meters bid after the closing date and cost more than the other companies who bid for the tender for a worse product and the entire thing has been a clusterfu*k from day one.

Now moving on to USC, I find it hilarious that people, especially middle income earners, are looking for it to be cut, because these same middle income earners would be the hardest hit if front line public services were cut even further than they already have been to facilitate the hole in finances removing USC would create.

All these Generation Xer's with stupidly over inflated celtic tiger mortgages would cry blue murder when Caolan and Beibhinn's class size rose yet again, their college fees increased and the cost of bringing them to the hospital rose.

In Ireland we have this weird belief that we can have good services without paying for them, it makes no sense. We have a mid level taxation system by European standards and get sh*te services for it, and yet people think cutting taxation will fix the problem?

I earn a sizable wage, and I have the option of staying in Ireland or moving to other EU states where tax is ab awful lot higher and the reason I stay here is because my family and my partner's family is here, otherwise I'd have no hesitation in moving to Denmark or Germany, paying more tax and having a much better return for my tax Euro.

You lot are Michael Noonan's wet dream.

It beggers belief.

Smidge

This debate never ceases to amaze me. USC is just another grab on working peoples wages. Ask your local rep when voting why this tax, which was introduced during times of need to bring in more of a tax take, is still being applied now that apparently "we are thriving"??

As for the water issue?
Surely folks cant be so blind as not to realise that water is the VERY thing we cannot live without..jokes have been made in the past about an oxygen tax. Its not far from the mark.
Ask Michael Barry about water and the many other countries and "governments"(and I use this term lightly as it really is BIG CORPS doing it, who in essence run the countries)and their interest in water.
Oil is a past concern....needs must and a market is needed to keep industry and profit for the major players going.

Speedwell

Smidge wrote: »

As for the water issue?
Surely folks cant be so blind as not to realise that water is the VERY thing we cannot live without..jokes have been made in the past about an oxygen tax. Its not far from the mark.

Well, we do not require an infrastructure to process and deliver air to our homes and businesses, nor point-of-use technology other than our bodies to use it. We do require the government to protect the air we breathe and to help us recover from damage when there are "air floods" (as someone who has been through three hurricanes can attest). I wish people would just stop using that argument already.

Otherwise, yes, clean and drinkable water is an absolute vital necessity that the vast majority of us are not equipped to provide safely for ourselves (even people with wells need to make sure their water is safe, clean, and abundant according to official standards), and provision of it is a public health and safety issue, and what in the hell are societies for if not for that? That's just basic.

ejabrod

You cannot privatise USC

catbear

Jack Killian wrote: »

What ? €166 vs €260 ?

I was going on what my what people tell they've paid.

Anyway we need water, do we need Ryan Tubber flogging his JFK books or Joe Duffy just flogging himself?

Speedwell

catbear wrote: »

I was going on what my what people tell they've paid.

Anyway we need water, do we need Ryan Tubber flogging his JFK books or Joe Duffy just flogging himself?

Well, someone certainly needs flogging :P