listermint wrote: » It wont get to that stage, read the papers. its all falling apart.
Barely There wrote: » They used to say that on the HHC thread too.
Mrs Garth Brooks wrote: » I realise that there is a budget deficit. Taxes and charges has to be raised. But I read something that we weren't even paying the interest on the bank bailout loan. I'm no mathematician, but introducing a water charge won't cover this bank debt.
listermint wrote: » There wasnt 150,000 on the streets back then And Increasing with each march. All hands on deck, all hands on deck Labour senators backed an opposition motion to hold a referendum on public ownership of Irish Water. Alan Kelly said he would raise the matter with the Cabinet. Enda Kenny said that Burton’s €200 figure was her speaking “in a personal capacity” while Leo Varadkar said he wasn’t sure what Burton had meant. Gerry Adams said that the Taoiseach should tell the EU to ‘bugger off’ over water charges. Finance Minister Michael Noonan appeared to rule out any Revenue involvement in collecting water charges.
listermint wrote: » Address the rest of my post.
Rosa Hot Lumberman wrote: » How do you know the allowance will be cut? I'd imagine there will always be an allowance. Look I've said a number of times that I do not like or want water charges but they are not the big deal a lot of people are making out of them especially when taxes have been reduced to compensate. Small cuts in other things like excise on fuel, car tax or further reductions in taxes would be much more appealing to me than stopping water charges.
Daith wrote: » IW is a utility. HHC/Property tax is different. Do people go to jail for non-payment of their ESB bill (I actually don't know. They could)?
Rosa Hot Lumberman wrote: » How do you know the allowance will be cut? I'd imagine there will always be an allowance. Look I've said a number of times that I do not like or want water charges but they are not the big deal a lot of people are making out of them especially when taxes have been reduced to compensate. Small cuts in other things like excise on fuel, car tax or further reductions in income taxes would be much more appealing to me than stopping water charges as they would all be more beneficial in the long run.
geeksauce wrote: » This I agree with, reduction in taxes would certainly help compensate for the increased expenses I will have as a result of the Water Charges. A reduction in the USC would be a good start or even a reduction in the LPT, stop penalising those that work and those that own properties and start asking everyone to pay for water, this is much fairer as everyone uses water so everyone should pay for it. As it is currently the employed are subsidising the water usage of the unemployed which is extremely unfair.
cerastes wrote: » As for water, this affects everyone.
cerastes wrote: » You can read the contempt they have though, Kinny says no referendum, not even a suggestion that any suggestion of privatization should have a referendum, just rejig the legislation long enough for them to get out of there. They couldnt do this before, yet the whole thing was rushed in which suited them to do in a hurry, and now again they can change legislation in a hurry, they are such a gang of lying sociopathic crooks.Pushing out the signing up to encourage more to sign up as they know its failed, still only paltry concessions on what it will actually cost and no certainty that it wont be increased significantly in the future after everything has settled down, anything at all about performance bonuses?? and pay at IW, just a few apologies out the sides of their mouths.
cerastes wrote: » How about call USC what it is, tax. As for water, this affects everyone.
geeksauce wrote: » The USC is definitely a tax. As for water I have a problem with the argument that we already pay for water, this is somewhat correct in that some of us already pay for water. Some of us don't already pay for water, in fact those that don't pay for water have their water paid for by those that do pay for it. Under the current system I pay for the water I use through income taxes, I also pay for water used by my unemployed neighbour, this is on top of me paying his SW also through my taxes, which results in him having a greater level of disposable income than me at the end of the week despite the fact I work full time and he doesn't. And this is supposedly ok because sure I have a job.
geeksauce wrote: » This I agree with, reduction in taxes would certainly help compensate for the increased expenses I will have as a result of the Water Charges. A reduction in the USC would be a good start or even a reduction in the LPT, stop penalising those that work and those that own properties and start asking everyone to pay for water, this is much fairer as everyone uses water so everyone should pay for it.
tayto lover wrote: » Nobody will go to jail for non-payment of water. The Govt got away with the HHC. Now the people have had enough. If you attended the marches you would believe that. I have attended plenty over the years but I have never seen anything like the anger from people who never protested before. This is different. The people are determined. Threats won't scare them off anymore. FG need to believe this and drop the arrogance.
hju6 wrote: » Where to start with a post so full of begrudgery ? Unless your unemployed Nieghbour does not eat, use electricity or gas, or infact does not consume anything then he pays no tax. If I was paying more tax than you, I could turn around and say that I am subsidising you and your family, by contributing more than you. And what of the long term sick and disabled do you begrudge paying for their water?
Geuze wrote: » As we have a large fiscal deficit, this means more taxes and/or less public spending. So maybe some taxes can be cut, but others must rise. We must reduce the public borrowing. The LPT and water charges are part of that, broadening the tax base to help close the fiscal deficit.
DamagedTrax wrote: » this is the disgusting core of society and we have multiple successive governments to thank for it. the greed and complete lack of empathy for the vunerable of this country is absolutely disgusting. we have become exactly what they programmed us to become. selfish consumers who are more concerned with our neighbours fortune (or lack of), than we are with paying any attention to the fact that every spec of humanity is slowly being eroded away to line their pockets.
Creative Juices wrote: » I have a great way to reduce the borrowing - take the €60billion of private banking debt out of our national debt! I believe we are spending €2 billion a year to service that €60billion! .
awec wrote: » It's absolutely nothing to do with that. "Disgusting core of society" is just hyperbole and tripe. I think people who get screwed over on tax time and time again are sick to the back teeth of certain sections of society moaning every time they have to pay for something. There is absolutely no way this would be as big a deal if the charge was aimed only at middle and higher income earners through a tax increase. Forget all this whining about the low income families getting screwed over. Middle income families have been screwed over for years, the difference is they are all to busy working to protest about it.
DamagedTrax wrote: » one man's tripe is another man's truth. if you dont see the ugly consumer we have all been programmed to become then thats a shame. the works of edward bernays are out in the open. the never ending consumer has become a reality. the very world we move about in on a daily basis is proof of this. hyperbole and tripe it is not, otherwise he wouldnt have made MASSIVE amounts of money from corporations, worldwide.
papu wrote: » That 60Billion is only part of the 200Billion we owe. What about the other 140Billion? and the over 4.3 billion service we pay on that?
Rosa Hot Lumberman wrote: » Yes it does and as was pointed out a water charge means those outside the tax net pay something towards it rather than those who pay tax subsidising those who don't. A water charge and a reduction in income taxes is a much fairer system as it means everyone contributes towards their water usage.
the groutch wrote: » And tax takes for the year are already €1.1bn ahead of plan, so the water charges are already paid for.
moxin wrote: » Everyone rich and poor have already paid for their water through motor tax and that rise in VAT. Why should we have to pay twice?
Rosa Hot Lumberman wrote: » I'd much prefer if they spent the car tax on fixing the roads, it really is ridiculous that it isn't in the first place that is point of car tax. Hitting one pothole and destroying an alloy would cost as much as a few years water charge. I detest paying car tax (in general) to use the roads and it being used to pay the dole for some waste of space that never worked a day in their life. At least the water charge is ring fenced and being used to provide water.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b1975299c8e5d4897a60061c4f145b7.svg)
