Why was there more protests over water charges than USC?

So the exact opposite happened in both cases.

Water charges were set up in order to present Irish Water as a profitable company.

That would then be sold off for a large amount to a private corporation.

Same as what happened in the UK.

It was an effort to 'sell the family jewels'.

I am no fan of the anti-water charges protesters etc, but the anti-water protest group is one crowd that I fully supported.

USC was introduced as a temporary tax in an emergency ( banking crash ) No discussion on it. Its in, and with the full force of the law backing it up, and thats that.

The water tax was was introduced as supposedly Govertment decree, IE your PPS Nr was needed. The truth was that it was not by Government degree, just dressed up to appear like that to give it credence.When this was rumbled, it caused a massive backlash,,,Irish Water was seen as something that would quickly morph into a private company controlling a natural resource for their financial benefit. And adding insult to injury, demanding PPS Nrs to boot!!! It had chicanery and illegality written all over it. And no matter how much explaining is or will be give regarding pricing, it will always be seen as the thin edge of the wedge. The USC being a case in point.

Income tax was a temporary tax brought in to fund a war in 1799. When the EU banned import duties we just changed the tax to a registration tax.

All taxes are permanent, they just rename them.

The raid on pension funds tool even more money from people than USC or water charges, but again as it doesn't affect the vocal minority no one protested.

Very simple - water pay was affecting everyone compared to USC which only affected workers

I know several people who went on those marches. All were responsible hard-working, tax-paying people and very far from the usual bunch of crusty malcontents. The numbers of attendees alone was an indicator that something different was afoot - the usual suspects can't raise those kind of numbers. Interesting to see that the "Water Protesters = Freeloading Layabouts" narrative is still alive and well, though.

Why didn't those same people protest against USC? My guess is that (a) the ship had pretty much sailed on USC whereas Irish Water was a longer process and (b) at least the USC went to the state whereas it was clear that IW was being set up to line the pockets of the already financially well-heeled.

Because like the bin tax it is an easy narrative, easy to politicise.

"Water should be free" is simple and easy to understand. It allows those people who are begging for some agency or control over their lives to feel relevant and meaningful, but absolves them from having to understand and address issues with nuance or complexity.

There was four major changes at the start of the fiscal crisis, USC, College fees, Property Tax and water charges. Three of these effect working people only, the forth effected everybody but those that get everything free would have to pay.

There was a strategic mistake made in its implementation. The other three were imposed straight away in 2011/12. Even property tax was implemented with an emergency tax first of 100 euro/ house.

The Labour government at the time wanted green credentials against the Green party and decided that water charges could not be implemented until metering was in place and they stopped a flat rate charge in 2011/12. Phil Hogan backed them because it suited him to leave the problem for the next incumbent.

By 2013/14 when water meter installation started the protestors had got organised. If it had been implemented as a flat rate charge we would have water charges now just like property tax

The working people who pay USC have no representation in the Dail or media. Once you make the decision to take responsibility for your own life and get educated and work, from then on you are on your own.

I could be wrong but didn't the USC replace both the income levy and the health levy which combined was 6% whereas USC is 4.5% if earning less than 50k. The key difference is everyone pays USC at some rate so its broader and higher earners now pay more. (up to 8%)

you are wtong

Because if you're on social welfare or other support you have to pay water charges but not USC so it impacted more people.

Back in the early eighties the original health levy was bought in as well I think there was an income levy of 2ish% it was called something else I think. PRSI was 4.5%. Roll on the mid noughties and Government abolished the all the levies except the health levy on top of the standard PRSI rate. At one stage in the eighties we had 52% tax rate and 8%PRSI and levy rate at the top rate of tax

When the fiscal emergency arrived the government bought in an income levy first and reconfigured it into the USC.

When the next financial crisis/recession comes the government will be in a bind as it has never managed to get the tax rates down. It will have to impose new charges and increase existing charges. The only other taxation possibility is the lower paid. A huge proportion of these are students earning sub 16k who pay no tax. Because low paid workers pay low rates if tax those on hight incomes have to carry the burden

Health and income levy was 4% and 2% (total 6%). Surely higher than USC for most people?

There was a smell of Dinny in the air. FG were about to give the boss a huge cash cow.

But he had to settle for just the contract to install the water meters..