nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Water meter protests

[Deleted User]

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?

Find more posts tagged with

more vatermeters bitte

cryptic messages

only on tuesdays

Quick Links

Comments

DoesNotCompute

ciarawira wrote: »

Excuse me but i am neither a thug or riff raff nor did i behave in such a manner! I protest the charges because : 1. The water is sub-standered
2. The meters are sub-standered
and 3. We already pay for water through taxes!

What gives you the right to tar everyone with the same brush?

3. You don't pay enough. That's why water charges are being brought in
1. Water quality will improve with more funds
2. So if they invested in better (i.e. more expensive) water meters, you'd be OK with paying water charges?

Coat22

RandomName2 wrote: »

Fat chance of that!

You would be paying MORE now than the riducolous amount we are currently paying - the €500M or whatever it is has to come from somewhere :-)

Macy0161

kneemos wrote: »

Curious how people have succumbed so easily to this tax, even to the point of turning against the protesters.Yet no doubt everyone will complain endlessly about having to pay it.

Maybe because a significant proportion of the population already pay for water - either a group water scheme, or through drilling and maintaining a private well.

BMJD

the time to say NO was in 2002 and 2007 but the majority of people fell for Bertie's horsefunkin$hite as usual

also, not everybody works 9 - 5 :rolleyes:

No Pants

jiltloop wrote: »

Tax on petrol/diesel.

May I please draw your attention to this important detail from post number 7?

No Pants wrote: »

motor tax

Chips Lovell

I think you're going down a rabbithole of needless pedantry here.

Taxation of car ownership very much follows a polluter pays model these days. The more polluting your car's engine is, the more Motor Tax you pay. The more fuel you burn, the more Carbon Tax you pay.

You may own a car that pre-dates the introduction of that system, but that doesn't alter the fact that such as system now exists.

ciarawira

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

3. You don't pay enough. That's why water charges are being brought in
1. Water quality will improve with more funds
2. So if they invested in better (i.e. more expensive) water meters, you'd be OK with paying water charges?

Are you saying we should take their word that the water will improve? A little naive no!? Would you buy slightly gone off milk at a higher price at a promise from the government that it won't spoil more but will improve once you hand over your hard earned cash??
not necessarily but if they proved that the meters were not harmful or sub-standered it would be a start!

BMJD

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Taxation of car ownership very much follows a polluter pays model these days. The more polluting your cars engine is, the more Motor Tax you pay.

that depends entirely on its usage; a parked-up car isn't polluting at all

[Deleted User]

ciarawira wrote: »

Are you saying we should take their word that the water will improve? A little naive no!? Would you buy slightly gone off milk at a higher price at a promise from the government that it won't spoil more but will improve once you hand over your hard earned cash??
not necessarily but if they proved that the meters were not harmful or sub-standered it would be a start!

I've seen similar remarks about the meters before but never understood why people are saying the meters are harmful, can you explain how their harmful?

No Pants

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

You've a pre-2008 car?

No, it's a 2008 registration.

suicide_circus

hmmm wrote: »

I'm all for people paying for what they use. If someone spends all day watering their gardens, I shouldn't have to pay the same amount in tax for water as they do. I'm even more in favour of people who pay no tax at all making some contribution to the costs involved.

People who pay no tax wont be paying for their water usage either.

Anatom

Deleted User wrote: »

I've seen similar remarks about the meters before but never understood why people are saying the meters are harmful, can you explain how their harmful?

They're not harmful - at all. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about and is just scaremongering.

macwal

Satriale wrote: »

shouldnt they have safety helmets/steel toecaps on inside that barricade?

Who's to say that they are the ones inside the barricade, maaaaaaaaaaan?

It's all a matter of perception.

suicide_circus

kneemos wrote: »

What's that costing?

Dosnt matter, the people who have the time to assault contractors during the day aren't paying for the gardai.

BMJD

suicide_circus wrote: »

People who pay no tax wont be paying for their water usage either.

that's right, we have to protect the "most vulnerable" from any form of responsibility

[Deleted User]

Anatom wrote: »

They're not harmful - at all. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about and is just scaremongering.

That's what I thought. I was just curious to see what the reasoning behind those remarks was.

Anatom

Deleted User wrote: »

That's what I thought. I was just curious to see what the reasoning behind those remarks was.

Oh I'll be interested to see that reasoning too..!

smellmepower

Nice handy days work for the 5 Gardai in that picture!

Don't see them for dust round here when there's a break in or a stolen car tearing about,but I'm sure they'll be out in force to protect DOB's profits.

PropJoe10

My name is URL wrote: »

Just saw this posted on Reddit

http://i.imgur.com/gWADurN.jpg

This might be funny, if it wasnt for the ridiculously high level of crime in this country at the moment. Its reassuring to know that our police force is being utilised in such an important way.

No Pants

smellmepower wrote: »

Nice handy days work for the 5 Gardai in that picture!

Looks boring as hell.

Satriale

PropJoe10 wrote: »

This might be funny, if it wasnt for the ridiculously high level of crime in this country at the moment. Its reassuring to know that our police force is being utilised in such an important way.

Not to mention preventing them from their other important duties of collecting revenue from motorists...

No Pants

BMJD wrote: »

that depends entirely on its usage; a parked-up car isn't polluting at all

My point exactly. Motor tax isn't polluter-pays. If I don't use the car and therefore don't pollute, I don't get anything back. My only choice is to declare the car off the road, but then that removes my choice of whether to use it or not.

jiltloop

No Pants wrote: »

My point exactly. Motor tax isn't polluter-pays. If I don't use the car and therefore don't pollute, I don't get anything back. My only choice is to declare the car off the road, but then that removes my choice of whether to use it or not.

I get your point, but what way is there around this? Other than removing motor tax and increasing the Tax on fuel to make up the shortfall but presumably the emissions aren't just based on the amount of fuel you use but also on how the car processes that fuel.

ciarawira

the cover or container is not fit for purpose and does not meet the required standards.therefore is unsafe and/or substandard!

Chips Lovell

So you want to have a car, that isn't used, but not declared off the road and exempted from tax, on the off chance they you might need to use it?

OK...

user2011

3min video posted on liveleak, if you can get past the dub accent you'll be fine :P

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ce_1402567031

[Deleted User]

ciarawira wrote: »

the cover or container is not fit for purpose and does not meet the required standards.therefore is unsafe and/or substandard!

That's the covers you've replied about, you haven't explained how the meter is harmful.

suicide_circus

user2011 wrote: »

3min video posted on liveleak, if you can get past the dub accent you'll be fine :P

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ce_1402567031

What's your man shiiting on about whistleblowers for?

ciarawira

Deleted User wrote: »

That's the covers you've replied about, you haven't explained how the meter is harmful.

don't be so petty!! i never said the meter as a whole where harmful i just want reassurance that they are NOT harmful! how many times are we going to fall for lies before we question those who spout them?

i think you are just looking for an argument but unfortunately for you i will not fall for such childishness !

user2011

suicide_circus wrote: »

What's your man shiiting on about whistleblowers for?

Taking the water piss out of them that none there were whistle blowers so they are corrupt.

I haven't a clue tbh but that's my best guess. You can't have much of a conversation with people who won't talk so take the piss see if that gets a rise out of them.