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.
Daith wrote: » Does your neighbor have children? Do you have children? Is he/Are you metered or unmetered?
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.
Uriel. wrote: » Apartments are problematic, granted. Hopefully that particular issue resolved in due course.
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 .
darkpagandeath wrote: » a generous allowance is needed.
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.
Tony EH wrote: » Did I?
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:
mickydoomsux wrote: » make sure these "poor unfortunates" never have to endure the worst recession in the history of the state.
Lemlin wrote: » Yes, you agreed that if urban dwellers start to pay both will be paying twice.
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.
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:
Lemlin wrote: » You'd prefer to be glib
Lemlin wrote: » What's your own feasible alternative to water charges then?
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.
Lemlin wrote: » My stance is based on fact. Not pettiness or a bitter attitude.
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.
Tony EH wrote: » Well, you must be thrilled the way things are going so. Good for you. :rolleyes:
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.
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:
mickydoomsux wrote: » So you have no intelligent response then?
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.
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.
mickydoomsux wrote: » Why will that bother you? You'll surely be a millionaire soon with that crystal ball you obviously have.
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.
Uriel. wrote: » Nice to see you finally admit that we aren't paying enough for our current services.
Uriel. wrote: » Leaving aside EU obligations, the polluter pays principle encourages water conservation and reduces waste.
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?
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.
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/09db0d78cf62f598a20c8cba8bae71e5.svg)
