Water meter protests

Daith · 20-06-2014 04:13PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

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.

Waste water will be included when the billing starts afaik?

Tony EH · 20-06-2014 04:14PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

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.

No doubt that will come into effect soon enough.

As for jacking up the price, you can absolutely guaranteed that will happen.

But our grandchildren will be happy about it apparently. :pac:

Uriel. · 20-06-2014 04:51PM

Daith wrote: »

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

Neither of us have children and both will be metered when the infrastructure is completed and switched on

Uriel. · 20-06-2014 04:52PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

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.

Apartments are problematic, granted. Hopefully that particular issue resolved in due course.

darkpagandeath · 20-06-2014 04:55PM

Uriel. wrote: »

Apartments are problematic, granted. Hopefully that particular issue resolved in due course.

I highly doubt it, What will they do stick on meter onto the mains into the apartments and split it via number of apartments. That just get you to pay for your neighbours running water like the osmonds .

Uriel. · 20-06-2014 05:00PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I highly doubt it, What will they do stick on meter onto the mains into the apartments and split it via number of apartments. That just get you to pay for your neighbours running water like the osmonds .

Don't know to be honest. i am no familiar with the technical aspects apartment water infrastructure. There must be splits in the mains pipe at some point though I'd imagine. Probably depends on individual complexes. Government could seek legislative framework for meters on private properties - whether that would be politically or constitutionally feasible is another matter. In fact whether it is technically feasible will also be an issue there too.

We don't know yet though.

mickydoomsux · 20-06-2014 05:06PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

a generous allowance is needed.

Sure, why not. Keep adding to the free **** these people are already getting.

Middle to higher income earners are always going to be there to pick up the bill to make sure these "poor unfortunates" never have to endure the worst recession in the history of the state.

darkpagandeath · 20-06-2014 05:08PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Sure, why not. Keep adding to the free **** these people are already getting.

Middle to higher income earners are always going to be there to pick up the bill to make sure these "poor unfortunates" never have to endure the worst recession in the history of the state.

Can you live on €188 pw ? JSA allowance, lets not go down the rout of everybody gets 15 holidays a year on the dole.. Everyone is not entitled to every allowance. most are means tested.

Lemlin · 20-06-2014 05:10PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Did I?

Yes, you agreed that if urban dwellers start to pay both will be paying twice.

Tony EH wrote: »

No doubt that will come into effect soon enough.

As for jacking up the price, you can absolutely guaranteed that will happen.

But our grandchildren will be happy about it apparently. :pac:

Of course it can be "absolutely guaranteed" the price will go up, there's a thing called inflation.

I really do laugh at these statements made by anti water charge protestors.

No Pants · 20-06-2014 05:13PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

make sure these "poor unfortunates" never have to endure the worst recession in the history of the state.

What's a recession to people who don't work and never will work?

Tony EH · 20-06-2014 05:34PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Sure, why not. Keep adding to the free **** these people are already getting.

Middle to higher income earners are always going to be there to pick up the bill to make sure these "poor unfortunates" never have to endure the worst recession in the history of the state.

I hope you never have to avail of welfare lad.

Because that kind of poxy attitude won't help you then.

Tony EH · 20-06-2014 05:36PM

Lemlin wrote: »

Yes, you agreed that if urban dwellers start to pay both will be paying twice.

That doesn't tie in to what you said earlier.

Lemlin wrote: »

Of course it can be "absolutely guaranteed" the price will go up, there's a thing called inflation.

I really do laugh at these statements made by anti water charge protestors.

Keep laughing.

It'll look great along with your clown suit. :pac:

Lemlin · 20-06-2014 05:47PM

Tony EH wrote: »

That doesn't tie in to what you said earlier.

Keep laughing.

It'll look great along with your clown suit. :pac:

You see you are typical of an anti water protestor. 2 sentence answers and the like because you have absolutely nothing to back up your opinion. Just this continued idea of privitisation that is continually thrown about.

You can't even respond to a simple question I asked about the unfairness of the current system. You state you have but I can't see a response and I've asked you to point out this supposed response but you still refuse to.

You'd prefer to be glib but then compare a poster who doesn't agree with you to a clown.

What's your own feasible alternative to water charges then? What's your feasible alternative for closing the budget deficit that we have? What's your feasible alternative for ending the current unfairness of rural people in water charges?

Tony EH · 20-06-2014 05:53PM

Lemlin wrote: »

You'd prefer to be glib

You make it easy to be glib with you, because your stance is based, frankly, on pettiness and a bitter attitude.

In addition, I've declared my objections a number of times already in the thread.

You're just not paying attention.

Lemlin wrote: »

What's your own feasible alternative to water charges then?

I've already said it.

What should have been done was to increase general taxation for a period, to cover the costs or repairing our water infrastructure. Then when that was done, reduce that tax increase.

Instead, what we now is another bill which will just increase in cost and hardship for many people and a backdoor privatisation of an essential public resource, that will, no doubt, be the source of many threads on Boards in the years to come. :pac:

Lemlin · 20-06-2014 05:56PM

Tony EH wrote: »

You make it easy to be glib with you, because your stance is based, frankly, on pettiness and a bitter attitude.

In addition, I've declared my objections a number of times already in the thread.

You're just not paying attention.

My stance is based on fact. Not pettiness or a bitter attitude.

As I asked previously, are you sure you're not a politician? I asked three questions and not one answered.

What's your own feasible alternative to water charges then? What's your feasible alternative for closing the budget deficit that we have? What's your feasible alternative for ending the current unfairness of rural people in water charges?

Answering simply worded questions is something you have a real problem with. Rather than posting about problems, why not try to come up with some solutions or offer alternatives?

Ah no, says your lot, it's easier to just say no. No to everything!

Tony EH · 20-06-2014 06:01PM

Lemlin wrote: »

My stance is based on fact. Not pettiness or a bitter attitude.

No, your stance is based on bitterness, because of the situation you find find YOURSELF in presently.

mikeym · 20-06-2014 06:15PM

What annoys me is the people that say they pay for water already and that we should stop our whining.

Yes they pay for private water but these schemes were generously subsidised by the government.

mickydoomsux · 20-06-2014 06:16PM

Tony EH wrote: »

What should have been done was to increase general taxation for a period, to cover the costs or repairing our water infrastructure. Then when that was done, reduce that tax increase.

You do realise you can't just repair it once and it'll "keep" forever, right?

It needs constant maintenance and upgrading which requires constant funding. More primary-school-child level economics from the anti-austerity crowd.

Tony EH · 20-06-2014 06:22PM

Well, you must be thrilled the way things are going so.

Good for you.

:rolleyes:

mickydoomsux · 20-06-2014 06:25PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, you must be thrilled the way things are going so.

Good for you.

:rolleyes:

So you have no intelligent response then?

darkpagandeath · 20-06-2014 06:26PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

You do realise you can't just repair it once and it'll "keep" forever, right?

It needs constant maintenance and upgrading which requires constant funding. More primary-school-child level economics from the anti-austerity crowd.

You mean just like the governments if you don't waste water you will not get a big bill, That's total boll*x tbh The regulator will change that very fast when they realise their not getting enough money. The government has repeatedly said this is to save water, And repeatedly said they will charge more if they don't raise enough through charges. So how is it to save water ? but that's by the by privatisation will come system barely maintained while profits creamed.

Uriel. · 20-06-2014 06:28PM

Tony EH wrote: »

You make it easy to be glib with you, because your stance is based, frankly, on pettiness and a bitter attitude.

In addition, I've declared my objections a number of times already in the thread.

You're just not paying attention.

I've already said it.

What should have been done was to increase general taxation for a period, to cover the costs or repairing our water infrastructure. Then when that was done, reduce that tax increase.

Instead, what we now is another bill which will just increase in cost and hardship for many people and a backdoor privatisation of an essential public resource, that will, no doubt, be the source of many threads on Boards in the years to come. :pac:

Nice to see you finally admit that we aren't paying enough for our current services.

Leaving aside EU obligations, the polluter pays principle encourages water conservation and reduces waste. This significantly contributes to the sustainable living that this planet requires.

Tony EH · 20-06-2014 06:29PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

So you have no intelligent response then?

Why should I bother?

You and two friends are fixed rigidly in your stance.

You're not really interested and everything has already been said.

mickydoomsux · 20-06-2014 06:30PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You mean just like the governments if you don't waste water you will not get a big bill, That's total boll*x tbh The regulator will change that very fast when they realise their not getting enough money. The government has repeatedly said this is to save water, And repeatedly said they will charge more if they don't raise enough through charges. So how is it to save water ? but that's by the by privatisation will come system barely maintained while profits creamed.

Why will that bother you?

You'll surely be a millionaire soon with that crystal ball you obviously have.

darkpagandeath · 20-06-2014 06:30PM

Uriel. wrote: »

Nice to see you finally admit that we aren't paying enough for our current services.

Leaving aside EU obligations, the polluter pays principle encourages water conservation and reduces waste. This significantly contributes to the sustainable living that this planet requires.

Then explain the charge going up when they don't raise enough when people conserve water it's nothing to do with conservation at all. It’s all to do with paying for infrastructure running costs and shareholder profits.

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Why will that bother you?

You'll surely be a millionaire soon with that crystal ball you obviously have.

why do I need one when the government of the day it's self has consistently said they will raise the charge if the cant generate enough.

mickydoomsux · 20-06-2014 06:32PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Why should I bother?

You and two friends are fixed rigidly in your stance.

You're not really interested and everything has already been said.

Nothing to do with the fact that everything you come up with is either downright misinformation or your arguments just get blown out of the water by those pesky facts?

Tony EH · 20-06-2014 06:34PM

Uriel. wrote: »

Nice to see you finally admit that we aren't paying enough for our current services.

What the hell are you talking about? I haven't made any comments confirming or denying the current amount of payments.

What a stupid sentence. :pac:

Uriel. wrote: »

Leaving aside EU obligations, the polluter pays principle encourages water conservation and reduces waste.

Except that's a lie.

The ridiculously small allowance means that even if you are conserving water, you're still paying...twice.

FG already tried to tack on a standing charge too, but that was, thankfully, vetoed by Labour.

But, it'll come in eventually.

Tony EH · 20-06-2014 06:35PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Nothing to do with the fact that everything you come up with is either downright misinformation or your arguments just get blown out of the water by those pesky facts?

Your dreaming again.

darkpagandeath · 20-06-2014 06:35PM

Tony EH wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about? I haven't made any comments confirming or denying the current amount of payments.

What a stupid sentence. :pac:

Except that's a lie.

The ridiculously small allowance means that even if you are conserving water, you're still paying...twice.

FG already tried to tack on a standing charge too, but that was, thankfully, vetoed by Labour.

But, it'll come in eventually.

Yes it will via the regulator then labour get to say we did not agree to it.

Uriel. · 20-06-2014 06:36PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Then explain the charge going up when they don't raise enough when people conserve water it's nothing to do with conservation at all. It’s all to do with paying for infrastructure running costs and shareholder profits.

why do I need one when the government of the day it's self has consistently said they will raise the charge if the cant generate enough.

As you already know, it's to do with the water framework directive as much as it is anything else, one of our legal obligations as an EU member state

Water meter protests

Comments