Water meter protests

Daith wrote: »

You're contradicting yourself here.

We are paying for water. Not enough sure but we are paying.

That's not a contradiction. You cannot know the exact amount but you have to accept that it cannot be enough. Seems fairly easy to follow.

Daith wrote: »

Only if you're metered.

It is still ensuring that people are paying directly for their own water. Not that rural people are paying twice and urban people are paying once.

The question that has seen Tony EH run to the hills above and refuse to give a direct answer is the one which quickly undoes any argument put forward by an anti water charge protestor.

Rural people have been paying direct water charges for years. People argue water charges are "unfair" but what is unfair is the present system.

Daith

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That's not a contradiction. You cannot know the exact amount but you have to accept that it cannot be enough. Seems fairly easy to follow.

No it doesn't.

If you don't know how much how can you be sure it's so little?

Daith wrote: »

No it doesn't.

Well that's your problem then.

Daith

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Well that's your problem then.

You're argument that you don't know how much is spent per person on water but that everyone should accept it's too little.

Show me some evidence behind it and I'll accept it.

end of the road

Uriel. wrote: »

Water Charges are predominately an obligation under EU law, as you know.
The idea is to move away from general taxation and develop a more sustainable tax base, therefore yes, such charges are here for the long-haul and in time, general taxation rates will fall, where appropriate.

taxation rates won't fall, the move to service based charges is obliged under EU law so the lot can be privatized so french and german companies including their state owned companies can enter the markets for these services, meaning countries like ireland will have to depend on the EU more and be held to ransom

No Pants

Just saw my first Irish Water vans in Swords. One in my cul-de-sac and others at Brookdale Green and Park Avenue, along with barricades for the installation work. Was planning on stopping over to see what the meters looked like, out of curiosity, but they seems to have knocked off just before 16:00.

Daith wrote: »

You're argument that you don't know how much is spent per person on water but that everyone should accept it's too little.

Show me some evidence behind it and I'll accept it.

Yeah, I don't really care if you accept it or not. I'm not going to go digging through budget figures to satisfy your doubt.

Daith

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Yeah, I don't really care if you accept it or not. I'm not going to go digging through budget figures to satisfy your doubt.

I'm just asking you to back up your statement with evidence. Quite happy to accept if it's true.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Yeah, I don't really care if you accept it or not. I'm not going to go digging through budget figures to satisfy your doubt.

So that's a "you have no idea if we are paying to little then ?"

allibastor

Deleted User wrote: »

What would be the point in that?

Not a big point, But its the best protest point put forward here yet!

keithclancy

IMO its a completely stupid idea putting them outside.

Would have been far simpler to install them inside the house were you can actually read the meter yourself and also would prevent issues with freezing and so on.

keithclancy wrote: »

IMO its a completely stupid idea putting them outside.

Would have been far simpler to install them inside the house were you can actually read the meter yourself and also would prevent issues with freezing and so on.

You can refuse to have a meter on your private property. People are fine with established utilities meters but many are not fine with these ones. I can't see how freezing would be an issue anyway if it’s that cold the whole pipe system would be frozen.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You can refuse to have a meter on your private property. People are fine with established utilities meters but many are not fine with these ones. I can't see how freezing would be an issue anyway if it’s that cold the whole pipe system would be frozen.

If they aren't fine with a meter or paying for water, why don't the state just cut off their supply?

Then they can harvest their own water or dig and maintain a private well.

Daith wrote: »

I'm just asking you to back up your statement with evidence. Quite happy to accept if it's true.

Well in the absence of a hypothecated system you must assume a proportional division of government income amongst all expenditure. As we are in a deficit that means that no item of expenditure is sufficiently covered by income. So not only are you paying to little for water, but for all government services.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So that's a "you have no idea if we are paying to little then ?"

I don't know who little is or why I would be paying any money to him.

Lemlin wrote: »

If they aren't fine with a meter or paying for water, why don't the state just cut off their supply?

Then they can harvest their own water or dig and maintain a private well.

because they are not allowed to cut you completely off, You need water to live.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

because they are not allowed to cut you completely off, You need water to live.

The human right to water and sanitation states:

•Affordable. Water, and water facilities and services, must be affordable for all. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) suggests that water costs should not exceed 3 per cent of household income.

Water can therefore be charged for. If people are unwilling to pay, it should be cut off as per any service. When I built a house, it was up to me to ensure it had a water supply and I pay for the maintenance of same. If others aren't willing to pay, they shouldn't be provided with the service.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

They did not think it through, Eu said water charges government went ok give as many people we can a meter then bill the rest on some mythical number. Sure if your rich with kids you get the same breaks as a poor person that’s less able to pay. I may actually do better out of having the flat charge being in an apartment it seems now.

Not they will not history has shown us utility prices go up, were are paying over Celtic tiger prices now. And your dreaming if you think the government will reduce the tax intake...

I didn't say utility prices would fall. I said general taxation would, where appropriate. Dreaming? The Government have already said they will reduce general taxation in the next budget. I don't agree that the time is right though.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Well in the absence of a hypothecated system you must assume a proportional division of government income amongst all expenditure. As we are in a deficit that means that no item of expenditure is sufficiently covered by income. So not only are you paying to little for water, but for all government services.

I don't know who little is or why I would be paying any money to him.

Nope the government is hemorrhaging money via SW If everyone that lost their job's went back to work, The lighter SW bill and higher tax intake would be fine. We have already made all the necessary adjustments.

Uriel. wrote: »

I didn't say utility prices would fall. I said general taxation would, where appropriate. Dreaming? The Government have already said they will reduce general taxation in the next budget. I don't agree that the time is right though.

There's a general election coming up though so they'll be wanting to try and preserve some votes.

end of the road wrote: »

taxation rates won't fall, the move to service based charges is obliged under EU law so the lot can be privatized so french and german companies including their state owned companies can enter the markets for these services, meaning countries like ireland will have to depend on the EU more and be held to ransom

Government have already stated taxation will fall in the next budget. I don't believe it should, at this time, but that's a different matter.

The Water Framework Directive is the legal basis - based on the Polluter Pays Principle.

In 2016 our biggest problem won't be the EU, it'll be financial constraints arising from the doubling of the headline unemployment payment and the introduction of the the mobile phone user licence system

Lemlin wrote: »

There's a general election coming up though so they'll be wanting to try and preserve some votes.

of course they will. Like every Government before them. It's the wrong choice though and spurred on by gobsh1tes in the general populace who can't think beyond themselves.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Nope the government is hemorrhaging money via SW If everyone that lost their job's went back to work, The lighter SW bill and higher tax intake would be fine. We have already made all the necessary adjustments.

You can't have it both ways. You're saying on one hand it's not possible to say we are not paying enough for water because it all goes into one fund but on the other hand you are saying it's all down to welfare that we are in a deficit.

Uriel. wrote: »

of course they will. Like every Government before them. It's the wrong choice though and spurred on by gobsh1tes in the general populace who can't think beyond themselves.

That's the general problem in this country though. Nobody wants to pay their way.

As I said on another thread, I worked with a lad who is typical of many people I know. He drank at least four coffees a day (one in the morning pre work, two breaks and then one when leaving), ate in the office canteen twice a day and smoked at least ten a day.

Yet he'd sit there and complain about not being able to afford a house with the rest of us who were eating our prepacked lunches, not smoking and drinking water from the office water cooler.

end of the road

Lemlin wrote: »

The human right to water and sanitation states:

Water can therefore be charged for. If people are unwilling to pay, it should be cut off as per any service. When I built a house, it was up to me to ensure it had a water supply and I pay for the maintenance of same. If others aren't willing to pay, they shouldn't be provided with the service.

no you shouldn't, water is vital, proffiting from it should be banned

end of the road wrote: »

no you shouldn't, water is vital, proffiting from it should be banned

like food then? :rolleyes:

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You can't have it both ways. You're saying on one hand it's not possible to say we are not paying enough for water because it all goes into one fund but on the other hand you are saying it's all down to welfare that we are in a deficit.

No I'm saying we have already made the needed adjustments pretty much, And if everyone got magically back to work the indirect tax take would cover the water. But this is not why the water charge is coming in, Regardless of deficit the charge comes in EU law.

end of the road wrote: »

no you shouldn't, water is vital, proffiting from it should be banned

Who said anything about "proffiting"? I am talking about people paying to provide a service they are receiving.