Why we worry more about water charges than USC?

buried · 07-04-2016 10:23PM

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.

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'.

gti16v · 07-04-2016 10:23PM

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

My point has been completely missed here. Factor in the cost of buying pumps and treating the water. I spend 120 euro alone on water filters plus the actual treatment of the water.

In addition to this my electricity bill is twice the price it should be due to running pumps.

Therefore if you had to supply your own water 160 will cover filters and add on another 300 a year for treatment, double your electricity bill and hope to god nothing breaks. If the tax payer should cover water where should I send my bill.

Why should my taxes be higher to cover someone else's water????

Water charges should be separated from the tax system, those you use it pay for it.

I wish it wasn't the case and everything was free but it's like saying you shouldn't have to pay for electricity or phone.

Tasden · 07-04-2016 10:26PM

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'.

Ah no I'm not saying it didn't happen or that you're wrong I just know too little (read none!) to comment on it.

RandomName2 · 07-04-2016 10:28PM

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.

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.

questionmark? · 07-04-2016 11:21PM

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.

So your against Irish Water then as are many people who agree with the theory of charging for water but not the current set up? So if the charges were applied by the council or lumped in with the LPT would you still disagree with paying for water as it would be more accountable?

howdoyouknow · 07-04-2016 11:31PM

For Forks Sake wrote:

Nein.

For Forks Sake wrote:

Go again.

Nein. Go again yourself.
youtube.com/watch?v=n9Z7wDz1YrE

Curly Judge · 07-04-2016 11:41PM

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.

The privatisation threat and the Dinny takeover are bogeymen raised by clever charlatans and believed by emotional fools.

Jack Killian · 07-04-2016 11:47PM

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.

Where are you getting €160 from ?

A pro cast doubt on the bribe/grant being continued, plus there's another approx €230 per house at least going into IW.

Jack Killian · 07-04-2016 11:50PM

Curly Judge wrote: »

The privatisation threat and the Dinny takeover are bogeymen raised by clever charlatans and believed by emotional fools.

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.

Jack Killian · 07-04-2016 11:56PM

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.

Any proof of this ? We have low usage and low personal waste; the issue is 50% lost elsewhere.

buried · 07-04-2016 11:57PM

Curly Judge wrote: »

The privatisation threat and the Dinny takeover are bogeymen raised by clever charlatans and believed by emotional fools.

Go on, explain the foolishness

Jack Killian · 07-04-2016 11:58PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Bins included in that $2,500 ?

SFA tax on fuel, right ?

No two places are fully comparable, but an idea of services in return would be useful.

the_syco · 08-04-2016 01:17AM

Jack Killian wrote: »

We have low usage and low personal waste; the issue is 50% lost elsewhere.

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?

Jack Killian · 08-04-2016 07:45AM

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?

Slightly, maybe, but domestic meters aren't designed for that; it's only a side effect.

BTW it was far more than 20. Just to get the facts in there. One village I know had more than that alone.

NiallBoo · 08-04-2016 08:06AM

We don't pay anything like enough tax.

*runs for cover*

Speedwell · 08-04-2016 08:26AM

NiallBoo wrote: »

We don't pay anything like enough tax.

*runs for cover*

It would be helpful if you supplied some arguments to support this.

I think the money we pay is probably plenty, if it was used efficiently and effectively, and corruption and waste stamped out.

I'm not one of those sitting in the corner huddled around themselves screaming "MINE MINE MINE DON'T MAKE ME PAY FOR A DECENT COUNTRY" though.

stoneill · 08-04-2016 08:46AM

USC = Tax - not paying is a criminal charge
IW is not a tax as they were at great pains to tell us, it is a charge - not paying is a civil matter.

Curly Judge · 08-04-2016 10:02AM

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.

Ever the informer...eh?

ED E · 08-04-2016 10:10AM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Skangers don't have to pay the USC.

We had our answer in post #6, should be /thread

mickoneill31 · 08-04-2016 10:30AM

Speedwell wrote: »

It would be helpful if you supplied some arguments to support this.

I'm pretty sure the state borrows money to keep us going each year. Can't find the official number though.

Speedwell wrote: »

I think the money we pay is probably plenty, if it was used efficiently and effectively, and corruption and waste stamped out.

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.

Superhorse · 08-04-2016 10:33AM

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.

Incorrect.

Jack Killian · 08-04-2016 10:45AM

Curly Judge wrote: »

Ever the informer...eh?

No valid point to make.....eh?

Superhorse · 08-04-2016 10:46AM

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.

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.

Superhorse · 08-04-2016 10:53AM

Curly Judge wrote: »

The privatisation threat and the Dinny takeover are bogeymen raised by clever charlatans and believed by emotional fools.

And yet could have been fixed with the stroke of a pen by the government but wasn't. The fact they refused to tackle the issue is one of many reasons IW is now sunk below the water line. People aren't foolish they just have seen to many strokes by the Irish political class in years gone by and now you are seeing the results of that distrust. But hey you keep insulting people by calling them emotional fools if that makes you happy.

JustTheOne · 08-04-2016 10:54AM

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.

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 · 08-04-2016 10:58AM

This post has been deleted.

Superhorse · 08-04-2016 11:02AM

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.

So paying PAYE and PRSI doesn't count now as a tax? Didn't realise they changed the rules on that one any links? Didn't also realise that 900k didn't pay tax on petrol or diesel either? Do this 900k have a magic "I'm not paying any tax" card that the government have issued since like you know they "pay nothing" according to you.

Jack Killian · 08-04-2016 11:03AM

draiochtanois wrote: »

Or want to pay for water.

Or pay anything for anything for that matter.

All established as complete and utter spin and lies in the previous threads and again earlier in this one. You might want to read back through them.

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"

No idea what that is even trying to say. Most people in the country are "paying for water", because approx 80% of what IW is spending is from our taxes.

Superhorse · 08-04-2016 11:05AM

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are right of course they live in caves in the mountains hunting and living off the land. They pay for nothing :rolleyes:

Ah the old Sky argument with a healthy dose of anti soccer bias thrown in lol.

No mention of Jeremy Kyle in the thread yet though standards are slipping on here.

Speedwell · 08-04-2016 11:34AM

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.

The reduction of waste doesn't necessarily mean cutting anyone's benefits or privileges. I'm an IT database professional, and if I lost my job and went on the dole, I would be happy to instead be hired by the government to be on a team that eliminated stupid, duplicate, conflicting, obsolete, unusable, and unfindable data and systems. I think it would make everyone's job easier... bureaucrats and recipients alike... and free up so much time and save so much money. That's my particular bugbear and I'm sticking to it!

Resolving corruption, though... eeeeeeeesh, I'm not touching that one.

Why we worry more about water charges than USC?

Comments