Water meter protests

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.

You posited that the better approach would have been to increase general taxation for a period, which acknowledges that we are not paying enough to maintain the system as is.

AAre you saying that people don't reduce unnecessary consumption of a product or service as the price rises?

Jester252 wrote: »

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.

yes it is

Uriel. wrote: »

You posited that the better approach would have been to increase general taxation for a period, which acknowledges that we are not paying enough to maintain the system as is.

AAre you saying that people don't reduce unnecessary consumption of a product or service as the price rises?

It's a catch 22 you cannot get people to conserve water then be expected to pay even more to cover the cost of them not generating enough revenue to maintain upgrade the system.

mickydoomsux wrote: »

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.

no it isn't, rent, food, if you have kids, all adds up

darkpagandeath wrote: »

It's a catch 22 you cannot get people to conserve water then be expected to pay even more to cover the cost of them not generating enough revenue to maintain upgrade the system.

That wasn't the point being argued

end of the road wrote: »

yes it is

But at a price where relevant

Banjo String

mikeym wrote: »

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.

Subsidised by taxpayers in more urban areas also, which some posters refuse to recognise.

Uriel. wrote: »

You posited that the better approach would have been to increase general taxation for a period, which acknowledges that we are not paying enough to maintain the system as is.

The system has been badly run by successive organs. It's been in bad shape in certain areas and largely ignored. The time to fix the problems in the system was when we were "awash" with money.

But, no one gave a fuck then.

That's an argument for better management, not increases in money.

Uriel. wrote: »

AAre you saying that people don't reduce unnecessary consumption of a product or service as the price rises?

Some people will, some won't.

That's not the point.

Standing charges exposes the lie of a "polluter pays" mantra.

Uriel. wrote: »

That wasn't the point being argued

The Price rise will rise with people savings of water fact. People use less water save to a bear minimum, company cannot generate enough money to operate, company price rise to meet shortfall. only way this charge is going is up regardless of water conservation argument.

Which is exactly what will happen.

This is simply a money generating exercise. It has fuck all to do with the environment, waste, or fixing the leaks.

Tony EH wrote: »

The system has been badly run by successive organs. It's been in bad shape in certain areas and largely ignored. The time to fix the problems in the system was when we were "awash" with money.

But, no one gave a fuck then.

That's an argument for better management, not increases in money.

Some people will, some won't.

That's not the point.

Standing charges exposes the lie of a "polluter pays" mantra.

Standing charge cover fixed costs the rest is a per use basis

Uriel. wrote: »

Standing charge cover fixed costs the rest is a per use basis

Then why charge for usage if the cost of production and maintenance are covered via standing charge ?

Tony EH wrote: »

Which is exactly what will happen.

This is simply a money generating exercise. It has fuck all to do with the environment, waste, or fixing the leaks.

Your difficulty is your inability to see beyond conspiracy theories and think outside of the box.

NNone of these things need to be mutually exclusive. It can benefit the environment, Conservation, biodiversity while at the same time create a more sustainable tax Base into the future and raise revenue for the state coffers.

These are not either or matters.

Uriel. wrote: »

Your difficulty is your inability to see beyond conspiracy theories and think outside of the box.

Oh FFS.. :rolleyes:

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Then why charge for usage if the cost of production and maintenance are covered via standing charge ?

Fixed charges may not cover the costs for capital projects (infrastructure improvement works etc)

Plus you're forgetting, it's not ONLY about sustainability

Uriel. wrote: »

Your difficulty is your inability to see beyond conspiracy theories and think outside of the box.

NNone of these things need to be mutually exclusive. It can benefit the environment, Conservation, biodiversity while at the same time create a more sustainable tax Base into the future and raise revenue for the state coffers.

These are not either or matters.

What conspiracy theory is that ? The government has repeatedly said if they cannot generate enough money because people save water they will charge more for it.

Uriel. wrote: »

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

who says?

Uriel. wrote: »

the polluter pays principle encourages water conservation and reduces waste.

does it? i don't know anyone who uses any more then they need

Uriel. wrote: »

This significantly contributes to the sustainable living that this planet requires.

sustainable living is not what these charges are about, its about getting in more revenue, thats fine, but lets be honest about what they are for

Tony EH wrote: »

Oh FFS.. :rolleyes:

Oh I'm sorry, the sinn fein q and a book for running the country didn't have an answer for that? Thought not, must have spent too much time working on the section providing guidance for how to lie on the water meter access point

Uriel. wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry, the sinn fein q and a book for running the country didn't have an answer for that?

Yet another stupid comment.

Keep going. :pac:

end of the road wrote: »

who says?

does it? i don't know anyone who uses any more then they need

sustainable living is not what these charges are about, its about getting in more revenue, thats fine, but lets be honest about what they are for

Tonyeh said.

You must know a lot of environmentalists then.

These charges are not solely about one thing or another. Multiple benefits derive. I know that's difficult to comprehend, but mary lou will put you on the straight, I'm sure

Uriel. wrote: »

Tonyeh said.

No I didn't

You and your friends are really having a lot struggles reading.

Jester252

end of the road wrote: »

yes it is

Its not vital to have your crap washed away with treated water.

Jester252 wrote: »

Its not vital to have your crap washed away with treated water.

And when the hospitals are jammers with people with sewerage related conditions off work economy collapses ? Its vital to have sanitary water in a 1st world country.

Tony EH wrote: »

Yet another stupid comment.

Keep going. :pac:

Just trying to keep up (or down as it seems) with you.

mickydoomsux

darkpagandeath wrote: »

And when the hospitals are jammers with people with sewerage related conditions off work economy collapses ?

There's words there, but i refuse to believe it's a sentence.

Uriel. wrote: »

Tonyeh said.

You must know a lot of environmentalists then.

These charges are not solely about one thing or another. Multiple benefits derive. I know that's difficult to comprehend, but mary lou will put you on the straight, I'm sure

how and why would she