Water meter protests

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

end of the road wrote: »

yes it is

But at a price where relevant

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

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

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.

end of the road

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Good for you.

:rolleyes:

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.

mikeym

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.

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.

Lemlin

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!

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

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?