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

Daith

Anatom wrote: »

They did, you're right. But the infrastructure still doesn't work.

Ok but that's not the taxpayers fault is it? It was local council ineptitude just like the Poolbeg Incinerator fiasco.

Anatom

Daith wrote: »

Ok but that's not the taxpayers fault is it? It was local council ineptitude just like the Poolbeg Incinerator fiasco.

Well, Poolbeg was more of a political football than anything else, but you're right - the local authorities don't appear to have the management skills (or I've seen zero evidence of it) to run this properly.

The taxpayer is the well the government always runs to when they run out of water. Twas ever thus..

Daith

Anatom wrote: »

Well, Poolbeg was more of a political football than anything else, but you're right - the local authorities don't appear to have the management skills (or I've seen zero evidence of it) to run this properly.

Who's in charge of Irish Water?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/now-irish-water-chief-faces-pac-over-96m-poolbeg-bill-29933890.html

Anatom

Daith wrote: »

Who's in charge of Irish Water?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/now-irish-water-chief-faces-pac-over-96m-poolbeg-bill-29933890.html

Indeed!

Tony EH

Anatom wrote: »

This privatisation thing really annoys me.

Oh poor you.

Little CuChulainn

Tony EH wrote: »

Oh poor you.

Is that the best you could do? Couldn't address any of his points at all?

Uriel.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Is that the best you could do?

Yes it is.

Lemlin

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Is that the best you could do? Couldn't address any of his points at all?

You'll find the majority of anti water tax protestors the same. Akin to the likes of Sinn Fein, they'll blurt out supposed "facts" but if you actually try to interrogate what they are saying they have little left to back it up.

Tony EH

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Is that the best you could do? Couldn't address any of his points at all?

Why should I?

Anatom has written that there will be "...no privatisation until..."

Meaning that there will be privatisation.

Essentially Ireland's water supply is being privatised.

However, just because the mention of privatisation "annoys" him, doesn't mean anything.

Anybody who thinks that privatisation of our water supply isn't what this is all about is sticking their heads in the sand.

Bob24

Lemlin wrote: »

You'll find the majority of anti water tax protestors the same. Akin to the likes of Sinn Fein, they'll blurt out supposed "facts" but if you actually try to interrogate what they are saying they have little left to back it up.

Sadly after saying it enough times they managed to get people to use their misleading terminology.

It really is should be called a water charge rather than a water tax (ironically, while it will obviously be an additional expense for households, it actually is the opposite of a tax as it will reduce the amount of tax money spent into our water distribution network)

Tony EH

But still won't reduce the tax taken from people that goes into water at present.

A double "tap".

Bob24

Tony EH wrote: »

But still won't reduce the tax taken from people that goes into water at present.

A double "tap".

Yes basically this is a convenient way for the government to increase general taxation.

But I don't think "water tax" is right.

flutered

remember back in the day when the english tories sold everything that they could, now it is admitted that they sold the family silver, now the irish tories are about to embak on the same actions, then our grand kids and great grand kids will be singing the same chorus.

Barely There

flutered wrote: »

, now the irish tories are about to embak on the same actions, then our grand kids and great grand kids will be singing the same chorus.

I'd say our grand kids and great grand kids would be happier if we stopped mortgaging their future by having to borrow billions every year to fund our services.

end of the road

flutered wrote: »

remember back in the day when the english tories sold everything that they could, now it is admitted that they sold the family silver

yes, sold off for a pittence to their little friends, who tripple or more the price to the customer, taking the proffits over seas, and the tax payer still gives them money, shur tis a great old system

flutered wrote: »

now the irish tories are about to embak on the same actions, then our grand kids and great grand kids will be singing the same chorus.

yet we will all pay more in the long run via both prices and tax, funny how the UK government wouldn't give the money to the state companies but will gladly give a lot more away to private companies in the name of "competition" which doesn't really exist, ours will probably go the same way, how mrs thatcher burn/rot in hell could delude so many people around the world is certainly a mystery, herself and loony ronald were certainly a political match made in heaven

Tony EH

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes basically this is a convenient way for the government to increase general taxation.

But I don't think "water tax" is right.

It's a convenient way for the government to increase the tax take and offload any responsibility to reduce taxes when the country is back in the black.

What the punter will be left with an another ever increasing bill and nobody to turn to if that bill becomes unpayable or takes money from another much needed item...like food.

Tony EH

Barely There wrote: »

I'd say our grand kids and great grand kids would be happier if we stopped mortgaging their future by having to borrow billions every year to fund our services.

Sure.

They'll be thrilled when the time comes that they'll be paying through the face for waste collection, water, etc to private companies that will have no consideration on whether they can afford it or not, as their only concern will be their profit margin year on year.

And our grandchildren won't have anyone to turn with their complaints either, as future governmental bodies can simply say that it isn't their problem.

I'm sure they'll be very thankful.

Tony EH

flutered wrote: »

remember back in the day when the english tories sold everything that they could, now it is admitted that they sold the family silver, now the irish tories are about to embak on the same actions, then our grand kids and great grand kids will be singing the same chorus.

I remember it very well and also remember being told by an English chap (a Cons voter into the bargain) that selling off British Rail would lead to a disaster.

At the time I thought he simply meant an economic disaster, not the likes of Potter's Bar.

Lemlin

Tony EH wrote: »

But still won't reduce the tax taken from people that goes into water at present.

A double "tap".

I live in a rural area. I had to pay €1600 to be connected to the local water supply. That was after I had dug a trench and completed digger work to get the pipes from my home to the roadside. I could have paid €5,000 or perhaps more (depending on how far the dig was) to get a private well.

I now pay a yearly charge for my water through that Group Scheme.

I also, indirectly through my taxes, pay for the water of those in urban areas who have had free water now for decades.

So, if the "double tap" on water is the one that people like me are currently experiencing then you'd be correct. Do you feel this current system, pre water charges in urban areas, is fair?

Tony EH

NOBODY has had "free" water.

WE ALL pay for water.

Lemlin

Tony EH wrote: »

NOBODY has had "free" water.

WE ALL pay for water.

No we don't. Our taxes have covered the cost of the water system. We haven't been paying for our own individual use.

Anyway, stop trying to skirt away from the issue, whatever way you look at it, would you not agree that the present system is grossly unfair on rural people?

Even if you class people in urban areas as paying for water, by your own reckoning people in rural areas like myself have been paying twice. Is that fair?

Barely There

Tony EH wrote: »

Sure.

They'll be thrilled when the time comes that they'll be paying through the face for waste collection, water, etc to private companies that will have no consideration on whether they can afford it or not, as their only concern will be their profit margin year on year.

And our grandchildren won't have anyone to turn with their complaints either, as future governmental bodies can simply say that it isn't their problem.

I'm sure they'll be very thankful.

Will we go with your idea so? Keep racking up the debt that they'll have to deal with so that you can have a cushier life?

Hate for you to have to cancel you Sky subscription or anything.

Tony EH

Lemlin wrote: »

No we don't. Our taxes have covered the cost of the water system. We haven't been paying for our own individual use.

Yes, we do. We ALL pay money to the tax take.

There was and is NO SUCH THING AS "FREE" WATER. It was never "free".

We need to move away from that kind of bollocks talk.

Lemlin wrote: »

Anyway, stop trying to skirt away from the issue, whatever way you look at it, would you not agree that the present system is grossly unfair on rural people?

I'm not "skirting away" from any issue and your perceived "unfairness" is not going to go away with metered usage. You'll STILL be paying the tax. It's not going to go down. Metered usage isn't replacing tax funding. It's augmenting it.

Lemlin wrote: »

Even if you class people in urban areas as paying for water, by your own reckoning people in rural areas like myself have been paying twice. Is that fair?

You'll still be paying twice. So will I.

Lemlin

Tony EH wrote: »

Yes, we do. We ALL pay money to the tax take.

There was and is NO SUCH THING AS "FREE" WATER. It was never "free".

I'm not "skirting away" from any issue and your perceived "unfairness" is not going to go away with metered usage. You'll STILL be paying the tax. It's not going to go down. Metered usage isn't replacing tax funding. It's augmenting it.

You'll still be paying twice. So will I.

Well at least we will both be paying "twice" rather than rural people paying twice in a system that is unfair. I wouldn't be classing it as paying twice either. Have you been living in a bunker and failed to spot that the country is running at a budget deficit each year?

We need to increase taxes and reduce services to balance the books. Now seeing as there's huge public outcry every time a service is reduced, I guess we only have one way to go.

You also avoided my question - a yes or no answer please, is the present system, without water charges in urban areas, not grossly unfair on people in rural areas?

I don't think it's a matter of perception either (you refer to a "perceived unfairness), rural people are clearly paying extra charges that urban dwellers are not and the present system is unfair on them.

flutered

Barely There wrote: »

I'd say our grand kids and great grand kids would be happier if we stopped mortgaging their future by having to borrow billions every year to fund our services.

that is what i implied.

end of the road

Barely There wrote: »

Will we go with your idea so? Keep racking up the debt that they'll have to deal with so that you can have a cushier life?

Hate for you to have to cancel you Sky subscription or anything.

and privatization will bring down the national debt? yeah right, the customer will pay more and the tax payer will pay more

Tony EH

Barely There wrote: »

Will we go with your idea so? Keep racking up the debt that they'll have to deal with so that you can have a cushier life?

Hate for you to have to cancel you Sky subscription or anything.

A stupid comment.

First of all, I don't have Sky, nor will I ever have.

Second, it would be better to hold to account those who utilise the tax monies that are taken from citizens.

None of us really know exactly where our taxes are going, How they're being used, or what kind of inefficiencies they are subject to.

The "not enough" mantra my suit some with small ideological bubbles, but I'd rather subscribe to "what, where, when and how".

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that this nations taxes are being wasted on an incredible level...

...and by the same guys who are sing the "not enough" song.

Tony EH

Lemlin wrote: »

You also avoided my question - a yes or no answer please, is the present system, without water charges in urban areas, not grossly unfair on people in rural areas?.

No, I didn't, you were just unable to pick it up.

IT WILL STILL BE UNFAIR.

flutered

Lemlin wrote: »

Well at least we will both be paying "twice" rather than rural people paying twice in a system that is unfair.

I wouldn't be classing it as paying twice either. Have you been living in a bunker and failed to spot that the country is running at a budget deficit each year?
they why is it not addresed properly, hitting the poor the welfare recipitents each and every time will eventually have to grind to a halt.

We need to increase taxes and reduce services to balance the books. Now seeing as there's huge public outcry every time a service is reduced, I guess we only have one way to go.
what needs doing is the adminastration in placew in all public bodys be fillited and got working properly.

You also avoided my question - a yes or no answer please, is the present system, without charges in urban areas, not grossly unfair on people in rural areas?

yes very unfair.

Little CuChulainn

Tony EH wrote: »

There was and is NO SUCH THING AS "FREE" WATER. It was never "free"

It has been free since the water charges where withdrawn and has been funded by the budget surplus. This is no longer possible so it must be charged for again, and on a much fairer basis.