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

Jester252

Barely There wrote: »

I'm afraid just saying 'no' isn't an option unless you're a 2 year old in the middle of a temper tantrum.

Pleas post up your alternatives means of bridging our budget deficit in as much detail as your able to manage so we can assess your proposals

You might have misunderstood my post. I was commenting on Dublin says no non stop pretending that we already pay water taxes.

Barely There

Jester252 wrote: »

You might have misunderstood my post. I was commenting on Dublin says no non stop pretending that we already pay water taxes.

So 'Dublin' says no to people on boards saying that we already pay for water through taxation?

Why are you speaking on behalf of Dublin?
Why are you using a 'Dublin says no' slogan if you want to argue that water is not paid for already through taxation.

You seem very confused.

Jester252

Barely There wrote: »

So 'Dublin' says no to people on boards saying that we already pay for water through taxation?

Why are you speaking on behalf of Dublin?
Why are you using a 'Dublin says no' slogan if you want to argue that water is not paid for already through taxation.

You seem very confused.

You might be the one who is confused.

Dublin says no is the name of a group that opposes water charge and floods their FB page with crap about how we are already payinv fpr water through motor tax.

Anatom

Jester252 wrote: »

You might be the one who is confused.

Dublin says no is the name of a group that opposes water charge and floods their FB page with crap about how we are already payinv fpr water through motor tax.

They also spout rubbish about non-existent radiation from meters, just to try to scare people off. They abuse contractors for no reason. Empty vessels as I said yesterday. Case in point, when they got no joy out of the Gardaí in Raheny last week, they regressed to shouting at them about whistle-blowers....

Honestly, I have no problem with someone genuinely protesting about something they really object to, but some of these people are ridiculous and are only hurting their own campaign.

This thread has moved so fast since I last posted that its taken me a while to catch up with the reactions to my last one. Anyway, I mentioned privatisation and someone took my comment to mean that Irish Water wouldn't be privatised until the system had been fixed. That's not really what I meant, but to clarify: I don't think Irish Water will be privatised, at least not in the medium term, and that's as much as anyone can say about anything so please don't reply with "See! See! He didn't say `never'! It's going to happen!". For that to happen, the system - provision of supply, environmental compliance, billing etc. - would have to be running smoothly and I think we're a long way from that. That's why I don't think its an appropriate debate to be having - at this stage anyway - on a forum about protests.

Lemlin

Banjo String wrote: »

You keep coming back to this rural people have been paying it for years thing, that's the choice rural home owners made when deciding to live rural I'm afraid.

To even up the score with city dwellers (such as Dublin) maybe a toll should be placed on your main road? If for no other reason than to even up the score. (Dubs halve been faced with no less than 3 tolled roads afaik) I mean they have been paying motor tax, fuel tax, and tolls.

Well one might interpret that you are complaining about some folk 'not currently paying for their water' despite the fact they are through the current taxation model.

It could be argued that city dwellers might actually be paying more than you, and therefore subsidising you through higher taxation (higher salaries, higher commercial rates greater density of population and so on)

It sounds to me like you may well have accepted that you have to fund a water system (1600 per year) due to where you've chosen to live, much like I've accepted the hum of the N7 which is not too far from where I live (which was there when I bought)

I am currently paying for my water too incidentally. I keep reminding you of this fact.

(we can do this all day)

I live near the M3 and often travel to Dublin so I pay my fair share of tolls, as do most rural dwellers. You'll find that tolls are not exclusive to Dublin.

I still don't get your argument that city dwellers have been subsiding rural folk. As I pointed out, we require lower Garda prescence, don't have services like street lighting etc. The list could go on and on. You spoke about Dublin LPT going outside Dublin on another thread and I asked you for proof of same and you have yet to produce it. Have you anything to back up this claim that Dublin and urban areas are subsiding rural Ireland?

As I've pointed out though, some rural home owners hadn't the choice. People like farmers have to live near their farms.

The fairest system is for both rural and urban people to pay their way. To even the system out. You may argue that the current system is "fair" because people were aware of it when they built but that does not make it "fair" for some to pay twice and others to only pay once.

sligoface wrote: »

Ah sure, everyone who can't afford or doesn't want to pay new extortionate taxes should just leave. To heck with trying to expect fairness in the democratic country you were born in and are supposed so have a say in. You would fit right in with Enda and his pals.

If I can't afford to pay an extra 5 euro a week tax, where am I going to get the money to emigrate? If I could I would leave this joke of a place in a hearbeat. Do you think I haven't considered that option or something? Me and my family emigrated to the US when I was a child. It didn't solve everything. I had to move back because I couldn't afford college.

I didn't say I don't want to live in a country where you have to pay for water, you completely twisted what I wrote. I said I don't want to live in a society where people think that a vital reource like water should be denied to those who can't afford to pay for it. In the US I paid for water. But the thing was... You could get a job to pay for it! Here there is no work and yet the government are trying to take money I don't have for something I cannot do without.

It is directly related to our debts and private companies get your head out of the sand. Why didn't this come in until after we had to get bailed out then? Never heard a word about a water charge during the boom years. No feasible argument? How about the fact that people are still struggling due to the recession and don't have the ability to pay whatever charges the government dream up? It doesn't get much simpler than that.

I'm no fan of the present government. I would have happily left the troika running the place. They'll do better than any Irish government will. It'll only be so long until we are bust again.

The fact is though that the country is running at a budet deficit. Until such time as someone can come up with a bright idea to resolve this, we are going to have to increase taxes or reduce services.

I can't see how you can't afford €5 a week now but managed to graduate college. It's quite an expensive place to go these days so where have your funds suddenly gone as a graduate?

Why not approach the bank and ask for a loan? Explain that you wish to emigrate and will repay the loan from abroad. Plenty of banks offer graduate loans. I had plenty of classmates that came out of college up to their eyeballs in debt so at least you don't have that to drag you back.

Get your own head out of the sand. Unemployment is now 10% higher than it was in the boom years. That leads to higher welfare payments and lower tax take.

end of the road

people can't afford to pay, end of

Uriel.

end of the road wrote: »

people can't afford to pay, end of

Everyone? Some? A few? A couple? The minority? The Majority? What was your sample size for this survey? What and how were questions asked? Do you plan to publish your research and analysis?

Lemlin

end of the road wrote: »

people can't afford to pay, end of

Well if you can't afford to pay for a service, you shouldn't receive it IMO.

end of the road

Lemlin wrote: »

Well if you can't afford to pay for a service, you shouldn't receive it IMO.

but its not a service, water is vital

Little CuChulainn

end of the road wrote: »

but its not a service, water is vital

So is food. You still pay for it.

Jester252

end of the road wrote: »

but its not a service, water is vital

Water being pumped into your homes is not vital. The water you use for a shower is not vital. The water you use for flushing the toilet is not vital.

emo72

Lemlin wrote: »

Well if you can't afford to pay for a service, you shouldn't receive it IMO.

Seriously? It's hardly a luxury. You can't live without water.

Barely There

Poor old Dead End wants to live in his socialist republic where all his vital services are paid for by somebody else.

Sorry Sunshine no can do, now pay your taxes like a good man.

mickydoomsux

emo72 wrote: »

Seriously? It's hardly a luxury. You can't live without water.

You can't live without food either and you have to pay for that.

MY HUMAN RIGHTS! :mad::mad::mad:

darkpagandeath

mickydoomsux wrote: »

You can't live without food either and you have to pay for that.

MY HUMAN RIGHTS! :mad::mad::mad:

You can get SW payments that cover basic living.

And Who ever mentioned the property tax and being passed on to the renter why should they be allowed to do that, They don't pass on income tax and all that. Its their charge for owning a property not the renters. I rent and don't get charged it or is it only these types that charge you 3 times the mortgage on the place that do ?

mickydoomsux

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You can get SW payments that cover basic living.

And those payments can be used to pay your water charges which will become part of basic living.

So, no problem then and all the "can't pay" garbage is just rabble-rabble idiocy.

Uriel.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You can get SW payments that cover basic living.

And Who ever mentioned the property tax and being passed on to the renter why should they be allowed to do that, They don't pass on income tax and all that. Its their charge for owning a property not the renters. I rent and don't get charged it or is it only these types that charge you 3 times the mortgage on the place that do ?

Don't know where you pulled the property tax from. Property tax for Landlords is a cost of doing business. The same way as providing furniture or paying house insurance. Like any business landlords will set the price as to what can be achieved to maximise profits. If the cost of producing a service goes up (particularly where it is across the board), then the cost to the end user will as well, if the market can sustain it.

I don't see the correlation between social welfare payments and free water being a human "right"

[Deleted User]

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You can get SW payments that cover basic living.

And Who ever mentioned the property tax and being passed on to the renter why should they be allowed to do that, They don't pass on income tax and all that. Its their charge for owning a property not the renters. I rent and don't get charged it or is it only these types that charge you 3 times the mortgage on the place that do ?

I've seen the property tax passed on to renters. When we left our last rented property our then landlord was advising people viewing the house that he wanted the property tax with the deposit or in instalments added to the first 3 months rent. (I know the landlord doesn't look good here but they were genuinely one of the best landlords I've ever dealt with)

Lemlin

emo72 wrote: »

Seriously? It's hardly a luxury. You can't live without water.

Where did I say its a luxury. I said its a service. I'd find electricity tough to live without but that can be cut off.

darkpagandeath

Uriel. wrote: »

Don't know where you pulled the property tax from. Property tax for Landlords is a cost of doing business. The same way as providing furniture or paying house insurance. Like any business landlords will set the price as to what can be achieved to maximise profits. If the cost of producing a service goes up (particularly where it is across the board), then the cost to the end user will as well, if the market can sustain it.

I don't see the correlation between social welfare payments and free water being a human "right"

sorry some other poster mentioned property tax in a wall of text, And it's not a cost of doing business it's a charge for owning a property.

I mentioned the SW payments as mickydoomsux said you have to pay for food and what about them human rights. SW does give you a basic standard of living, I don’t think this further charged should be foisted onto the poor, a generous allowance is needed.

Uriel.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

sorry some other poster mentioned property tax in a wall of text, And it's not a cost of doing business it's a charge for owning a property.

I mentioned the SW payments as mickydoomsux said you have to pay for food and what about them human rights. SW does give you a basic standard of living, I don’t think this further charged should be foisted onto the poor, a generous allowance is needed.

Property tax is for Landlords, a cost of doing business. A cost that did not exist 5 years ago. The same way house insurance is. In fact, the same way mortgage interest payments are (75% of which can be written off as an expense). Bottom line is, if an LL's cost of business over the life of the Lease is X, then he will charge x+y, where y is the amount of profit he seeks to make (having regard for the market climate). Some LLs will have absorbed the cost of the property tax, other will not. Such decisions will essentially be business decisions.

As regards SW and water charges, then I am sure that allowance will be made for welfare dependent families - I think that has already been confirmed by Government.

Tony EH

Lemlin wrote: »

Yes, you agreed with me that the new system of charges will result in fairness. It will mean both rural and urban dwellers are paying direct water charges rather than just rural dwellers.

Did I?

darkpagandeath

Uriel. wrote: »

Property tax is for Landlords, a cost of doing business. A cost that did not exist 5 years ago. The same way house insurance is. In fact, the same way mortgage interest payments are (75% of which can be written off as an expense). Bottom line is, if an LL's cost of business over the life of the Lease is X, then he will charge x+y, where y is the amount of profit he seeks to make (having regard for the market climate). Some LLs will have absorbed the cost of the property tax, other will not. Such decisions will essentially be business decisions.

As regards SW and water charges, then I am sure that allowance will be made for welfare dependent families - I think that has already been confirmed by Government.

Did they not make it deductible from rental income therefore written off and not passed on to renter ?

the new Local Property Tax, which will apply from July 2013, will be allowable as an expense against rental income.

And the water charge confirmed by the government is a stupidly low figure that equates to flushing the toilet and having a 3 min shower a day no way covers reasonable usage.

Uriel.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Did they not make it deductible from rental income therefore written off and not passed on to renter ?

And the water charge confirmed by the government is a stupidly low figure that equates to flushing the toilet and having a 3 min shower a day no way covers reasonable usage.

Revenue have not confirmed this to be the case. And remains unlisted as an allowable expense

You would be taking a chance if you assume it can be deducted.

Tony EH

darkpagandeath wrote: »

And the water charge confirmed by the government is a stupidly low figure that equates to flushing the toilet and having a 3 min shower a day no way covers reasonable usage.

What it amounts to is a standing charge which makes a lie out of their bollocks talk about "user pays".

Uriel.

Tony EH wrote: »

What it amounts to is a standing charge which makes a lie out of their bollocks talk about "user pays".

User does pay. Standing charge covers fixed costs. If I use 100 liters per day and my next door neighbour uses 50 liters, who gets a higher bill?

Daith

Uriel. wrote: »

User does pay. Standing charge covers fixed costs. If I use 100 liters per day and my next door neighbour uses 50 liters, who gets a higher bill?

Does your neighbor have children? Do you have children? Is he/Are you metered or unmetered?

darkpagandeath

Uriel. wrote: »

User does pay. Standing charge covers fixed costs. If I use 100 liters per day and my next door neighbour uses 50 liters, who gets a higher bill?

Depends do you have children under 18 then you will get more free units, And tbh my next-door neighbour could be filling swimming pools and still pay the same as we live in apartments. it's not a fair system.

Tony EH

Uriel. wrote: »

User does pay. Standing charge covers fixed costs. If I use 100 liters per day and my next door neighbour uses 50 liters, who gets a higher bill?

With the allowance so deliberately and ridiculously low, the "user pays" mantra is a lie.

darkpagandeath

Tony EH wrote: »

With the allowance so deliberately and ridiculously low, the "user pays" mantra is a lie.

when will they be sticking on the charge for waste water ? or they leaving that up to the regulator to jack up the price saying it's their fault ? or just waiting till it's privatised.