Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

**ALL THINGS IRISH WATER/WATER RELATED** Part 2 - MOD WARNING IN OP

1…3940424445…132

Comments

  • #1232
    Caliden
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭Caliden


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    Barely There wrote: »
    No.

    Charge everyone for water and reduce income taxes.

    This would be a preferable situation for every working person in the Country.

    The only people against such a measure are those who don't work and have no intention of working.

    Short sighted view.

    When IW is privatised and water charges increase, the 'savings' made from a lower income tax will be of no benefit.

    There's also nothing stopping a future government from increasing income tax in the future.


  • #1233
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    Caliden wrote: »
    Short sighted view.

    When IW is privatised and water charges increase, the 'savings' made from a lower income tax will be of no benefit.

    There's also nothing stopping a future government from increasing income tax in the future.

    I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

    If 'everyone' contributes to the cost of water provision, than that cost is on average going to be less per person.

    If a smaller sub-set of 'everyone' contributes (like we do now), the cost will be more per person.

    In Scenario 1 - people who pay income tax will be better off and people who don't will be worse off.
    In Scenario 2 the opposite is the case.

    The core organisers of the protests want Scenario 2 (which we have now) to remain - the current status-quo suits them very much - they get all their services provided to them without having to pay for them.


  • #1234
    Caliden
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭Caliden


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    Barely There wrote: »
    I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

    If 'everyone' contributes to the cost of water provision, than that cost is on average going to be less per person.

    If a smaller sub-set of 'everyone' contributes (like we do now), the cost will be more per person.

    In Scenario 1 - people who pay income tax will be better off and people who don't will be worse off.
    In Scenario 2 the opposite is the case.

    The core organisers of the protests want Scenario 2 (which we have now) to remain - the current status-quo suits them very much - they get all their services provided to them without having to pay for them.


    You seem to think everyone on the dole is rolling in cash.

    It might be the case with some but there are genuine cases of people struggling.

    Also if you think water costs are going to go down when everyone starts paying then you need a reality check.


  • #1235
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    Barely There wrote: »
    You forgot to say Shin at the end of your post.

    You forgot to put "leeches" and "parasites" in yours.


  • #1236
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,706 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    twowheelsgood wrote: »
    No. Many people simply do not want to pay for water and most that oppose water charges would do so regardless of how well IW might have been setup. It is just easier to make criticisms against Irish water than it is to make a case against metered water.

    Bollocks.

    :/


  • Advertisement
  • #1237
    shinzon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,463 ✭✭✭shinzon


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    Barely There wrote: »
    I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

    If 'everyone' contributes to the cost of water provision, than that cost is on average going to be less per person.

    If a smaller sub-set of 'everyone' contributes (like we do now), the cost will be more per person.

    In Scenario 1 - people who pay income tax will be better off and people who don't will be worse off.
    In Scenario 2 the opposite is the case.

    The core organisers of the protests want Scenario 2 (which we have now) to remain - the current status-quo suits them very much - they get all their services provided to them without having to pay for them.


    And there you go again you seem to only have one argument that everyone that's protesting is scrounging off the dole which is simply not the case I really wish youd stop tarring everyone with the same brush.

    Shin


  • #1238
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    Caliden wrote: »
    Also if you think water costs are going to go down when everyone starts paying then you need a reality check.

    The costs of water provision are going to go up as population levels increase and demands on what is a valuable resource increase - that's pretty obvious.

    The question is how do we fund this cost?
    Should we stick with the current model which (under)funds it out of central taxation, or should we fund it through a system where everyone pays according to usage (with appropriate protections to the very financially vulnerable).


  • #1239
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,706 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    Barely There wrote: »
    I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

    If 'everyone' contributes to the cost of water provision, than that cost is on average going to be less per person.

    If a smaller sub-set of 'everyone' contributes (like we do now), the cost will be more per person.

    In Scenario 1 - people who pay income tax will be better off and people who don't will be worse off.
    In Scenario 2 the opposite is the case.

    The core organisers of the protests want Scenario 2 (which we have now) to remain - the current status-quo suits them very much - they get all their services provided to them without having to pay for them.

    The problem with all of the above is that you WON'T be doing that.

    What you have with Irish Water is a money grab designed to rip off the public and gouge as much money as is possible under the guise of repairing the water infrastructure, running the show and most laughably, conservation.

    None of which applies to the entity that is Irish Water.

    In principle, "pay for what you use" is fine and there would be few who'd be against that.

    What people are against is paying stupid amounts of money to rich boys in Irish Water, as well as the tax they're already paying.

    Why does this stuff keep having to be repeated?


  • #1240
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    shinzon wrote: »
    And there you go again you seem to only have one argument that everyone that's protesting is scrounging off the dole which is simply not the case I really wish youd stop tarring everyone with the same brush.

    Shin

    IS that so - perhaps you should read my posts more carefully.

    Barely There wrote: »
    Course it is. The leaders of these protests represent the same group of people who've spent their lives with their hands out milking the State.

    The protests have also managed to suck in some normal PAYE workers who are sick of austerity/cronyism/inefficiencies in the public service or whatever - but the core protestors simply do not want to contribute to society.


    You can see that I fully accept that not everyone protesting is a dole-scrounger.

    BT


  • #1241
    Caliden
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭Caliden


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    Barely There wrote: »
    The costs of water provision are going to go up as population levels increase and demands on what is a valuable resource increase - that's pretty obvious.

    The question is how do we fund this cost?
    Should we stick with the current model which (under)funds it out of central taxation, or should we fund it through a system where everyone pays according to usage (with appropriate protections to the very financially vulnerable).

    The current IW system isn't prepared for 'pay by usage' hence the need for standard charges.

    The current water infrastructure is ****ed and has been for years and it's maintenance has been avoided.
    What's the point in turning off your tap while you brush your teeth if 42% of all water used is from leaks?


  • Advertisement
  • #1242
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    Caliden wrote: »
    The current water infrastructure is ****ed and has been for years and it's maintenance has been avoided.
    What's the point in turning off your tap while you brush your teeth if 42% of all water used is from leaks?

    And yet the organisers behind these protests actively seek to retain the current system which has resulted in these issues.

    A separate body, which takes the decisions on the funding and investment into water provision, out of the hands of gombeen politicians (who's primary concern is their own re-election), is a very good idea indeed.


  • #1243
    Caliden
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭Caliden


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    Barely There wrote: »
    And yet the organisers behind these protests actively seek to retain the current system which has resulted in these issues.

    A separate body, which takes the decisions on the funding and investment into water provision, out of the hands of gombeen politicians (who's primary concern is their own re-election), is a very good idea indeed.

    The only investment will be into their own pockets. It's a for-profit body and maintaining/upgrading infrastructure won't be of benefit.


  • #1244
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    Caliden wrote: »
    The only investment will be into their own pockets. It's a for-profit body and maintaining/upgrading infrastructure won't be of benefit.

    :rolleyes:

    Just come out and admit you want others to pay for your water.
    I'd honestly have more respect for you,


  • #1245
    Caliden
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭Caliden


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    I'll pay if it's fair, which in it's current state it won't be.


    Will your kids/grandkids thank you when you tell them you had a chance to speak up but chose not to because you could afford it.
    IW is pandora's box and once it's there, it's here to stay forever and those charges won't be going down.


  • #1246
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    Caliden wrote: »
    IW is pandora's box and once it's there, it's here to stay forever and those charges won't be going down.

    Let's hope so.


  • #1247
    Caliden
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭Caliden


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    Barely There wrote: »
    Let's hope so.

    How very short sighted and self-centered of you.


  • #1248
    shinzon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,463 ✭✭✭shinzon


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    Barely There wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    Just come out and admit you want others to pay for your water.
    I'd honestly have more respect for you,

    And there you go again but anyways the infrastructure needs to be fixed first before any metering system should even be considered, its simple logic, you wouldn't try and fly an aeroplane without first checking if the engines worked so why should the pipes be any different.

    To be honest the 42% figure bothers me IW came out awhile ago and said it was closer to 48-49% leakage cant see them having fixed 6-7 percent of the network in a couple of weeks or months.

    If I was ever intending on paying the charge I would not pay for leaky infrastructure plus what I use you don't fix the barn door after the horse has bolted which is what the government and IW are trying to con everyone into doing, well have a world class infrastructure blah blah blah never mind youll be paying for the leakage plus useage

    Shin


  • #1249
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    Caliden wrote: »
    How very short sighted and self-centered of you.

    Long sighted and for the benefit of society in general actually.

    But, to be honest, it's apparent you don't have any solutions and are just here to have a good old moan about stuff, and frankly, I can't be arsed dealing with that.


  • #1250
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    shinzon wrote: »
    If I was ever intending on paying the charge
    I doubt you ever were tbh
    shinzon wrote: »
    I would not pay for leaky infrastructure

    So who pays - the money-fairies?

    shinzon wrote: »
    its simple logic,
    Sure it is.

    BT


  • #1251
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,941 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth
    shinzon wrote: »
    And there you go again but anyways the infrastructure needs to be fixed first before any metering system should even be considered, its simple logic, you wouldn't try and fly an aeroplane without first checking if the engines worked so why should the pipes be any different.

    To be honest the 42% figure bothers me IW came out awhile ago and said it was closer to 48-49% leakage cant see them having fixed 6-7 percent of the network in a couple of weeks or months.

    If I was ever intending on paying the charge I would not pay for leaky infrastructure plus what I use you don't fix the barn door after the horse has bolted which is what the government and IW are trying to con everyone into doing, well have a world class infrastructure blah blah blah never mind youll be paying for the leakage plus useage

    Shin

    The 42% figure is the average the estimates do place some areas as being nearly 50% though. Also the 42% figure is actually from a couple of years ago so it may indeed have increased to that percentage cementing the fact that I have been stating constantly and that you and others just refuse to believe that our infrastructure is 10-20 years away from being at third world levels


  • Advertisement
  • #1252
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,706 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    Barely There wrote: »
    And yet the organisers behind these protests actively seek to retain the current system which has resulted in these issues.

    The "current system" HASN'T "resulted in these issues", there's enough in the tax take to run our water system.

    It's neglect and misappropriation of funds that has resulted in the current state of our water infrastructure and the dire need to repair.

    And AGAIN, you're choosing to dodge the elephant in the room regarding Irish Water.

    You're credibility in in minus figures at this stage lad.


  • #1253
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    Tony EH wrote: »
    It's neglect and misappropriation of funds that has resulted in the current state of our water infrastructure and the dire need to repair..


    It's politicians spending our money on vote-winning exercises rather than investing in long-term infrastructure needs that has resulted in the current state of our water infrastructure and the dire need to repair
    Tony EH wrote: »
    The "current system" HASN'T "resulted in these issues", there's enough in the tax take to run our water system..

    It doesn't really matter even if there was,(and there isn't) enough money - it won't be spent on appropriate water investment.
    Why?
    Because there's no votes in it.

    Tony EH wrote: »
    And AGAIN, you're choosing to dodge the elephant in the room regarding Irish Water.

    You're credibility in in minus figures at this stage lad.

    Nope - I think you're the one missing the elephant, which is the investment needed to secure water-provision for us as a society into the future.

    As for credibility - I'm willing to engage in debate about the best way to secure appropriate investment in our infrastructural needs.

    You on the other hand just don't want to pay your taxes from what I can make out.


  • #1254
    shinzon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,463 ✭✭✭shinzon


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    Barely There wrote: »
    I doubt you ever were tbh

    Why do your arguments always start with a thinly veiled insult, is it you just cant help yourself or you just like a bit of trolling before arguing.

    Shin


  • #1255
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    shinzon wrote: »
    Why do your arguments always start with a thinly veiled insult, is it you just cant help yourself or you just like a bit of trolling before arguing.

    Shin

    Little bit of both.

    BT


  • #1256
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,706 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    Barely There wrote: »
    As for credibility - I'm willing to engage in debate about the best way to secure appropriate investment in our infrastructural needs.

    I don't believe you.

    You've continually ignored what people have said to, when it doesn't coincide with your limitations and consistently engaged in posting complete nonsense into the bargain.
    Barely There wrote: »
    You on the other hand just don't want to pay your taxes from what I can make out.

    Point proven.

    :rolleyes:


  • #1257
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    Tony EH wrote: »
    I don't believe you.

    You've continually ignored what people have said to, when it doesn't coincide with your limitations and consistently engaged in posting complete nonsense into the bargain.



    Point proven.

    :rolleyes:


    What, like you just did, cherry-picking the parts of my post it suited you to come up with a smart-arse reply to while conveniently ignoring the rest of it?


  • #1258
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,706 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    When you constantly post crap like this...
    You on the other hand just don't want to pay your taxes from what I can make out.

    ...it engenders an unwillingness to bother engaging further, or on a more comprehensive level.

    In addition, you proved my point beautifully. I was going to try and address your post more in depth, until I got to that part. But, frankly, the level of discussion you impart is chucklesome at best, but utterly lamentable for the most part, with repetition of the same old drivel, despite what other posters have countered you with.

    You penchant for mislabeling poster who disagree with you is a tiresome trait as well.


  • #1259
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    Tony EH wrote: »
    . I was going to try and address your post more in depth, until I got to that part.


    Sure, and you were going to pay for your water until.....

    *insert excuse here*

    All very convenient.


  • #1260
    Satriale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,023 ✭✭✭Satriale


    I would like Irish Water as a company to be restructured
    shinzon wrote: »
    And there you go again but anyways the infrastructure needs to be fixed first before any metering system should even be considered, its simple logic, you wouldn't try and fly an aeroplane without first checking if the engines worked so why should the pipes be any different.

    To be honest the 42% figure bothers me IW came out awhile ago and said it was closer to 48-49% leakage cant see them having fixed 6-7 percent of the network in a couple of weeks or months.

    If I was ever intending on paying the charge I would not pay for leaky infrastructure plus what I use you don't fix the barn door after the horse has bolted which is what the government and IW are trying to con everyone into doing, well have a world class infrastructure blah blah blah never mind youll be paying for the leakage plus useage

    Shin

    42% is the generally accepted figure. They were using the 49% figure with the CER to manipulate the costs and allowances to customers, a bit of creative accounting so to speak.
    A bit like Endas attempt to bring this thing "off balance sheets" in the eyes of Europe by semi-privatising it.

    Dodgy cnuts.


  • Advertisement
  • #1261
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,706 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    Barely There wrote: »
    Sure, and you were going to pay for your water until.....

    *insert excuse here*

    All very convenient.

    Yet another baseless accusatory label.

    You're just increasing the worthlessness of your contribution.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement