Tasden wrote: » We'll agree to disagree with rte and irish water, i don't think rte is to blame, that's not me denying its many failings though. I cant comment on shell myself.
listermint wrote: » This in a nutshell, those 'plums' that think 160-260 is nothing in comparison will be delighted im sure when their yearly bill is 800 - 1000 Euro per year for water on top of paying for everything else they work hard for. Let the celebrations begin when that sinks in. Some folks refuse to see the forest for the trees. But yeah.... 160 Euro that'll keep the billing agency IW going. LOL
buried wrote: » Look into it, if you can find the scant evidence that is, granted you won't find it on the RTE player but it did happen. People remember it, 90% in my local area do and that is one of the main reasons they distrust the corporate entity of 'Irish water'.
powerstar wrote: » Hi, I am just wondering why we in this country worry more about water charges than USC. We are paying more for USC than water charges. Water charges are only 160 or 260 per but most people pay over 1000 on USC per year. And no one talks about USC , it's same with political parties during elections. Yet there is massive protests about water charges. Why is peoples attitude is different with USC. Any thoughts.
RandomName2 wrote: » Because means is taken into account with USC Because USC does not go towards a private company that is propped up by the government. Because we as the electorate have control over USC. Irish Water the other day paid (with our money) for a legal opinion to say that it would be illegal to disband them ffs. Because USC doesn't penalise me for going to work with a clean car.
For Forks Sake wrote: Nein.
For Forks Sake wrote: Go again.
buried wrote: » You can certainly blame RTE in its failings of highlighting the gas giveaway to the Shell corporation. I vividly remember John Bowman when he presented 'Questions & Answers' literally ignoring and shouting down points made by some audience members concerning the giveaway of our gas resources. The same thing is being done with our water. Its not shown as a resource privatisation giveaway but a 'divide & conquer' scenario where one group of our society is battling another group, not what's actually happening with Dinny O'Brien's takeover. I agree with you, ignore all that social media TV noise concerning our water resourse, and start asking questions to your local elected representative about the privatisation threat to it.
questionmark? wrote: » The vast majority of the country can afford the €160, split that into 52 weekly payments by standing order, for an essential service. There is far too many people paying nothing towards the running of society. I'm happy for my share to go to those that need actual help and also for running crucial public services for everyones benefit.
Curly Judge wrote: » The privatisation threat and the Dinny takeover are bogeymen raised by clever charlatans and believed by emotional fools.
gti16v wrote: » People are very wasteful of this service and unless water is turned off during certain hours people will water it. In addition to this its a huge drain on the taxpayer.
Permabear wrote: » This post had been deleted.
Jack Killian wrote: » We have low usage and low personal waste; the issue is 50% lost elsewhere.
the_syco wrote: » Before, there was about 20 water meters for the entire country. They couldn't really detect where the water was going missing. But now, with many more water meters throughout the country, I'd say it'll be a whole lot easier to find out?
NiallBoo wrote: » We don't pay anything like enough tax. *runs for cover*
Jack Killian wrote: » The privatisation possibility could easily have been sorted by FG. They refused. Despite Noonan's best efforts the O'Brien discount and dodgy Siteserv deal is public, and far from fiction. Don't refer to us as fools again, as next time it'll be reported as the petty personal abuse that it is. If you have a valid point to make, let's hear it.
Galwayguy35 wrote: » Skangers don't have to pay the USC.
Speedwell wrote: » It would be helpful if you supplied some arguments to support this.
Speedwell wrote: » I think the money we pay is probably plenty, if it was used efficiently and effectively, and corruption and waste stamped out.
joe swanson wrote: » The idiots protesting come from the part of society that like to get everything for nothing. They dont have to worry about usc as they receive a generous weekly pay cheque from the govt for doing absolutely nothing.
Curly Judge wrote: » Ever the informer...eh?
smash wrote: » The water charges just became the straw that broke the camels back. We're taxed to hell and it pushed many people over the edge. The support to scrap the charges and dismantle Irish water grew when the public were made aware of the extent to which the company is a complete shambles. Add to that the dodgy DOB stuff and then the usage of our property and motor taxes that have gone to support it.
Superhorse wrote: » I was all for paying for water at the beginning and wouldn't even notice the 260 per annum tbh but the shambles that IW has become and complete lack of accountability from the top down has changed my mind. Stopped paying after the second bill and have zero intention of giving another cent of my hard earned to this disaster of a company. To the posters saying everyone opposing what IW has become is "on the dole" or "skangers" etc... you do your argument no good with such stereotyping nonsense. Even if the IW figure of 61% having paid up thus far (and that figure is very murky imo) is correct then what are you suggesting the other 39% of the population are? Fact is the protests have worked and IW will be either disbanded or completely torn to pieces and the charges suspended. I have no problem paying USC and never have as I was glad to pay the charge in order to help get the country back on it's feet as most of us where.
JustTheOne wrote: » Except 900,000 people don't pay usc. So it's a certain section that keeps the country afloat as usual through insane taxes and the other half get off with paying nothing.
draiochtanois wrote: » Or want to pay for water. Or pay anything for anything for that matter.
I would love to see the correlation between Sky subscribers and [b\not paying for water[/b], because watching foreign teams playing a foreign sport is "real nationalism"
draiochtanois wrote: » This post has been deleted.
mickoneill31 wrote: » I agree with this bit. If you can figure out how to do this let us know and we'll nominate you for a Nobel prize. Any time it seems some major departments or agencies (HSE for example) try to introduce improvements we get strikes or digging in of heels. I don't think it'll be resolved in my lifetime.
