Russell Brand on water charges! Do your worst!

Guy:Incognito · 14-11-2014 07:16PM

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

You don't need a link to it. We have been paying for water prior to Irish Water through general taxation. How else do you think it was being paid for?

Now, with Irish Water, we will be charged a further amount for water. Hence the being 'charged twice'.

How about "we were paying for everything that runs the country plus borrowing billions" now we have to pay directly for more to reduce borrowing (and paying interest)

Maybe we should all pay the teachers directly in cash? Or everyone is designated a social welfare recipient and they have to pay them?

Water is a part of government spending that can (and should) be paid for directly and based on usage. It helps to keep the cost of providing the water down too to prevent overuse.

But sure the rich man on the telly says we should all fight back against the capitalist pigs so pitchforks at the ready.

Maybe he should go back on the Heroin and calm himself down?

denhaagenite · 14-11-2014 07:19PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Maybe we should all pay the teachers directly in cash? Or everyone is designated a social welfare recipient and they have to pay them?

In Soviet Ireland...

fr336 · 14-11-2014 07:21PM

denhaagenite wrote: »

It's posts like this that highlight the issues with our great nation. What makes you think that he gives a s**t? Why would he?? Stop looking at shouty celebrities to tell you how to think and start making your own mind up. Here's exactly what Garth and Russ feel about Irish people:

I did. And I agreed with Russell still.

Rabo Karabekian · 15-11-2014 02:16AM

denhaagenite wrote: »

So "general taxation" doesn't cover power showers, overfull cisterns, broken public and private infrastructure and general wastefulness- then what? The Irish public are so conscientious that they can absolutely be trusted to look after the future of water in Ireland without having to pay for what they use, is it?

My understanding is that a lot of water usage will still be paid for regardless of usage. Live in an apartment block? Use whatever you like, but pay a standard charge. So IW still hasn't fixed the problem, but we've paid millions to them to get a message across that they have.

It's a big money hole. The setting up of IW is shady as hell, protest all you like about that for sure but don't be fooled by the great unwashed benefitters who are only complaining because they're not liable for property tax or universal social charge and are finally being called to task about something.

Well, here's where we disagree (as in fundamentally: so neither of us will ever change the other's mind): I would favour progressive taxation generally, so something like what we had before where we paid for water through taxes (with perhaps a relief scheme based on usage).

elefant wrote: »

Is Road Tax also double-taxation then?

Also, what happens if more funds are needed to keep water services functioning? Do we take money from other important services? Or does general taxation need to be raised?

Clearly, general taxes would need to be raised.

Jake Rugby Walrus666 wrote: »

How do you know we weren't being charged three times. Or four.
Have you got an itemised receipt for your "general" taxation.

Okay. Previously we received water in our taps. The majority of this water was fit for use, and the water that went the other way was treated. This was paid for by our tax. The tax we have paid over the last (say) ten years has increased, while we will now have to pay for water on top of this. Hence the 'paying twice' (I did put it in quotation marks initially).

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How about "we were paying for everything that runs the country plus borrowing billions" now we have to pay directly for more to reduce borrowing (and paying interest)

We can pay 'directly for more to reduce borrowing' by increasing taxes (if needs be). A lump sum to a company that has been a shambles from the start is hardly going to inspire confidence that we will see an efficient service that will give us value for money.

Dreannz · 15-11-2014 02:31AM

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Is it the dude from Rubber Bandits doing the jingle at the end?

Ya that's your man from the rubberbandits doing the jingle. He had him on the trews aswell and in his take of the song park life. He seems to like the rubberbandits

Its Only Ray Parlour · 15-11-2014 02:55AM

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

Okay. Previously we received water in our taps. The majority of this water was fit for use, and the water that went the other way was treated. This was paid for by our tax. The tax we have paid over the last (say) ten years has increased, while we will now have to pay for water on top of this. Hence the 'paying twice' (I did put it in quotation marks initially).

Can't you just apply that logic to electricity too? Wouldn't ESB covered by general taxation, too, so we shouldn't have to pay our ESB bills?

twowheelsgood · 15-11-2014 08:43AM

elefant wrote: »

I did a search online to learn more about this 'taxed twice for water' concept but I couldn't find anything concrete about it, only some bits like comments from protesters who were marching and referred to it. Do you have something you could link to so I can read up on it? If that is the case then the frustration could be more understandable.

We clearly are already paying for water - otherwise nothing would happen when you turn on your tap.

The error that they “we pay twice” gang are making is to fail to realise that the portion of general exchequer funds that is currently used to pay for water will be used for something if we pay for water directly. (What it’s used for is irrelevant.)

Unless every charge (goods / services / wages) presented to IW is paid both by them and again in duplicate by the government then we will not be paying twice.

Anyway, there’s another thread for this kind of thing - this one is about that hairy fellow. Bad enough that we are to be all Johnny pay twice without being Johnny thread twice as well.

Rabo Karabekian · 15-11-2014 09:53AM

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

Can't you just apply that logic to electricity too? Wouldn't ESB covered by general taxation, too, so we shouldn't have to pay our ESB bills?

I don't know, were we supplied with electricity initially that was paid for out of taxes? No? Then the situations aren't the same.

Cantremember · 15-11-2014 10:15AM

Even Russell Brand can see that we are being ripped off by our own government by being made to pay for something already paid for. A lot of Irish posters here with real Irish accents who mock Russell Brand can't admit the glaringly obvious fact he can see. If ye want more money for water lads take it from the current tax take. Start with third world hundreds of millions

Guy:Incognito · 15-11-2014 10:21AM

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

We can pay 'directly for more to reduce borrowing' by increasing taxes (if needs be). A lump sum to a company that has been a shambles from the start is hardly going to inspire confidence that we will see an efficient service that will give us value for money.

How is everyone paying for their own usuge directly not fairer than raising tax?

Would you be happy to pay for everyone's electricity and gas from your taxes too?

There's no incentive to curb your usage if your not paying directly for it with a bill through the door.with everyone using as much as they like because it never costs them more regardless, usage will only ever go up and therfore cost only ever goes up so tax can only ever go up. It's a continuous spiral.

Guy:Incognito · 15-11-2014 10:27AM

Cantremember wrote: »

Even Russell Brand can see that we are being ripped off by our own government by being made to pay for something already paid for. A lot of Irish posters here with real Irish accents who mock Russell Brand can't admit the glaringly obvious fact he can see. If ye want more money for water lads take it from the current tax take. Start with third world hundreds of millions

Do you borrow money every week(with interest) to be paid back over 6 months to buy your food shopping? Or would that be a stupid system that leads to ever increaseing debt for you?

Cantremember · 15-11-2014 10:33AM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Do you borrow money every week(with interest) to be paid back over 6 months to buy your food shopping? Or would that be a stupid system that leads to ever increaseing debt for you?

Stupid question.

R P McMurphy · 15-11-2014 10:36AM

c_man wrote: »

We're already paying for water through general taxation. Being asked to pay for something twice, and which has been made a complete balls of by the gov == people pissed off.

I never quite understood that point. Surely we pay for a lot of services twice then. What is to be done about people on group water schemes that have been paying on water for 20-30 years. Should they all get a rebate. We pay taxes on taxes on taxes. Are a lot worse charges than water charges, such as vrt on cars. That being said iw is a mess and should only ever have been introduced on a not for profit basis

Sam Kade · 15-11-2014 10:41AM

fr336 wrote: »

I've almost gone thirsty not being able to control myself from the laughter of reading this beyond witty post.

What's witty about it I'm not being smart it's just that I never listen to that brand fella.

Rabo Karabekian · 15-11-2014 10:45AM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How is everyone paying for their own usuge directly not fairer than raising tax?

Would you be happy to pay for everyone's electricity and gas from your taxes too?

There's no incentive to curb your usage if your not paying directly for it with a bill through the door.with everyone using as much as they like because it never costs them more regardless, usage will only ever go up and therfore cost only ever goes up so tax can only ever go up. It's a continuous spiral.

Because there will be significant people *not* paying for their usage. Apartments/flats will be charged a fixed rate and people with children (regardless of income) will receive further allowances. And then there's the allowance that *everyone* gets (again, regardless of income). Saying there's no means to curb usage through taxation is incorrect. It doesn't exist *now* but it's something to investigate for the future.

downonthefarm · 15-11-2014 10:51AM

He got to be in katie Perry

Spencer Winterbotham · 15-11-2014 11:04AM

I have to question myself some times... I am so critical of how the country is managed but when "outsider" criticises the country I get all defensive..... Don't make no sense.

Demonique · 15-11-2014 12:06PM

iDave wrote: »

The only funny thing about him is his pathetic attempt to re-brand (pun not intended) himself as some sort of intellectual fighting for the common man. Odd he needed to go down the populist route after his shameful prank-call stunt.

Pretty sure he grew up in poverty to a single mother though

Agricola · 15-11-2014 12:51PM

He speaks the truth. But people only see the scruffy hippy with the rough London accent. He's rich and gets the roide too which doesnt help his cause.

mikom · 15-11-2014 12:59PM

Agricola wrote: »

He speaks the truth. But people only see the scruffy hippy with the rough London accent. He's rich and gets the roide too which doesnt help his cause.

Yep, jealousy and fear of something "different" is a lot of it.

Jester252 · 15-11-2014 01:12PM

Russell Brand is the perfect socialist with his millions and millions of pounds that he's not sharing.

Demonique · 15-11-2014 01:25PM

denhaagenite wrote: »

It's posts like this that highlight the issues with our great nation. What makes you think that he gives a s**t? Why would he?? Stop looking at shouty celebrities to tell you how to think and start making your own mind up. Here's exactly what Garth and Russ feel about Irish people:

Video isn't working

Fakman87 · 15-11-2014 01:34PM

Lads can someone who knows more clarify this for me.

It struck me the other day that one of the reasons people have been so outspoken about the water charges is that it's the first tax that no one can dodge.

People were angry about the property tax but a lot of people don't own their house so could avoid it, whereas this water tax has to be paid by everyone. Is it the case that a lot of the people who are protesting this are the same ones who have availed of the welfare culture in Ireland for too long?

Like I said I could be well off the mark, just a thought.

FullblownRose · 15-11-2014 01:52PM

Fakman87 wrote: »

Lads can someone who knows more clarify this for me.

It struck me the other day that one of the reasons people have been so outspoken about the water charges is that it's the first tax that no one can dodge.

People were angry about the property tax but a lot of people don't own their house so could avoid it, whereas this water tax has to be paid by everyone. Is it the case that a lot of the people who are protesting this are the same ones who have availed of the welfare culture in Ireland for too long?

Like I said I could be well off the mark, just a thought.

Well if theyve availed of welfare maybe they cant afford the tax. Plenty of people opposed to it who are in employment too. And if they could spare the time to attend a rotest, im sure theyd be boosting the numbers of protestors.

AboutaWeekAgo · 15-11-2014 01:57PM

Jester252 wrote: »

Russell Brand is the perfect socialist with his millions and millions of pounds that he's not sharing.

Pretty sure that all the profits from his latest book are going to charity and there are numerous others that he is involved with as well.

Noam Chomsky is worth a fair few million as well, does that make everything he says rubbish too? Is it only broke people who can speak out on things?

15-11-2014 02:16PM

dquinnan wrote: »

"Fight back against rich capitalists, but make sure to visit my web site and buy my $37 Russell as Che Guevara t-shirts though!"

Well all profits from his t shirt sales go to his charity so that blows that smart comment out of the water.

Guy:Incognito · 15-11-2014 02:28PM

Cantremember wrote: »

Stupid question.

But yet borrowing for the day to day running of the country instead of paying for the things that can be paid for directly and through as system where everyone pays for what they use is a good thing?

Guy:Incognito · 15-11-2014 02:32PM

R P McMurphy wrote: »

I never quite understood that point. Surely we pay for a lot of services twice then. What is to be done about people on group water schemes that have been paying on water for 20-30 years. Should they all get a rebate. We pay taxes on taxes on taxes. Are a lot worse charges than water charges, such as vrt on cars. That being said iw is a mess and should only ever have been introduced on a not for profit basis

It making profits is a good system. The shareholders decide if dividends are paid out. The government are the shareholders. So if it's making money it either stays in the company for investment in infrastructure or comes back in to the government coffers. Running as a none profit runs the risk of having to prop it up with subsidies if the income estimates aren't bang on. Run it like a (semi) normal company and you've clear figures as to what's left after costs.

padd b1975 · 15-11-2014 02:33PM

In Lonesome Dove wrote: »

I heard of the name Russell Brand before but I'll be completely honest, I don't know who he is or what he does? Is he a singer? An acter? A comedian? I suppose a Google will sort that out for me.

I watched his video last night about Irish water and I admire him for it.

I think he's an astrologer.

Tail Docker · 15-11-2014 02:44PM

Every time I hear him speak, I think Frank Spencer has grown out his hair, swallowed a dictionary and started clothes shopping in a bazaar. Lots of big words propelled into the atmosphere by copious hot air. Fcuk off Russell, you're a tool.

Russell Brand on water charges! Do your worst!

Comments