Water meter protests

ciarawira

ciarawira wrote: »

don't be so petty!! i never said the meter as a whole where harmful i just want reassurance that they are NOT harmful! how many times are we going to fall for lies before we question those who spout them?

i think you are just looking for an argument but unfortunately for you i will not fall for such childishness !

I'm not looking for an argument at all. I asked if you could explain how the meters are harmful. You responded by saying that the covers are not suitable/ safe. That didn't answer my question about the meters being harmful which is why I pointed it out.

ciarawira

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not looking for an argument at all. I asked if you could explain how the meters are harmful. You responded by saying that the covers are not suitable/ safe. That didn't answer my question about the meters being harmful which is why I pointed it out.

ok i apologise i should of said the "cover" instead of the meter itself!

Chucky the tree

PropJoe10 wrote: »

This might be funny, if it wasnt for the ridiculously high level of crime in this country at the moment. Its reassuring to know that our police force is being utilised in such an important way.

Those police ares being used to a stop crime, what's the problem with that?

No Pants

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

So you want to have a car, that isn't used, but not declared off the road and exempted from tax, on the off chance they you might need to use it?

OK...

No, you're misrepresenting what I stated. I'm not asking to be exempt from tax. The car is taxed. I'm asking to be taxed based on my use. Right now I'm paying €280 a quarter for someone that only gets used at the weekends. If my neighbour drove an identical car 300km a day, seven days a week he'd pay the exactly same rate of motor tax. In no way does that follow the polluter pays principle that often gets trotted out when the government requires additional cash.

I don't understand, what exactly is the problem with what I'm suggesting?

Coat22

user2011 wrote: »

3min video posted on liveleak, if you can get past the dub accent you'll be fine :P

No Pants wrote: »

No, you're misrepresenting what I stated. I'm not asking to be exempt from tax. The car is taxed. I'm asking to be taxed based on my use. Right now I'm paying €280 a quarter for someone that only gets used at the weekends. If my neighbour drove an identical car 300km a day, seven days a week he'd pay the exactly same rate of motor tax. In no way does that follow the polluter pays principle that often gets trotted out when the government requires additional cash.

I don't understand, what exactly is the problem with what I'm suggesting?

I don't understand you either - do you want to just pull up at a toll on the days you do take your car out and pay tax for them days?

Your neighbour in this example pays more TAX (not more car tax granted) than you as he is paying for the fuel used (the cost of which is what? 75% tax?)

Satriale

No Pants wrote: »

taxed based on my use.

Taxed on your use? Are you mad? who would pay for the champagne and strawberries?

Barely There

No Pants wrote: »

No, you're misrepresenting what I stated. I'm not asking to be exempt from tax. The car is taxed. I'm asking to be taxed based on my use. Right now I'm paying €280 a quarter for someone that only gets used at the weekends. If my neighbour drove an identical car 300km a day, seven days a week he'd pay the exactly same rate of motor tax. In no way does that follow the polluter pays principle that often gets trotted out when the government requires additional cash.

I don't understand, what exactly is the problem with what I'm suggesting?

Yep, but he'd be buying far more fuel for his car which is obviously taxed as well.

No Pants

Coat22 wrote: »

Your neighbour in this example pays more TAX (not more car tax granted) than you as he is paying for the fuel used (the cost of which is what? 75% tax?)

I'm not talking about fuel, so can we stay on the point please? I'm talking about motor tax.

PropJoe10

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Those police ares being used to a stop crime, what's the problem with that?

I'm sure they are indeed preventing a crime. Doesnt say much for them if it requires (at least) 5 of them to be standing there though.

No Pants

Barely There wrote: »

Yep, but he'd be buying far more fuel for his car which is obviously taxed as well.

I'm talking about motor tax, not fuel.

Satriale

i'd like to know what crime they are preventing? Section 4 of the Shouty People act? Isnt moaning a civil matter?

Joe Exotic

No Pants wrote: »

I'm talking about motor tax, not fuel.

You choose to buy it, more efficient engines are now taxed less, since 2008.
Also the car has already polluted in being built!!

so basically you agreed to the Tax system when you bought it

Its like saying " i knew what my paye was when i took the job but now that im paying it i don't want to "

anyhow this tread is about water meters

what i don't like is this

The installation of these meters is backed by the law

If you like a law or not doesn't mean you can choose whether to obey it or not!!

I particularly find it annoying when public representatives encourage people to disobey laws when they are part of the legislator, and should thus not support any breaking of the law.

do TD's take an oath of office?

By the way im in full support of the right to protest - just not interfering with the work

ArmaniJeanss

Satriale wrote: »

i'd like to know what crime they are preventing? Section 4 of the Shouty People act? Isnt moaning a civil matter?

Presumably its the likes of Gilroy and his merry band of fascist freemen screaming about illegal fluoride based water meters, whether the cops are on their oath or not, and what Constant Markievicz gave his life for. Not necessarily people to be trifled with when they get their mob hat on.

6 cops does seem excessive, but you'd need to see the camera pointed the other way 20 minutes previously to see what the actual level of threat was.

DoesNotCompute

ciarawira wrote: »

Are you saying we should take their word that the water will improve? A little naive no!? Would you buy slightly gone off milk at a higher price at a promise from the government that it won't spoil more but will improve once you hand over your hard earned cash??
not necessarily but if they proved that the meters were not harmful or sub-standered it would be a start!

Should we take your word that the water quality will get worse?

You still haven't answered the question by the way - would you be in favour of water charges is the meters were of better quality (and therefore more expensive, costing taxpayers more)?

And you haven't addressed my point that we are not paying enough taxes to cover water charges as it is.

From reading your posts, it seems like you're just parroting off objections that you've read on the Dublin Says No Facebook page to be honest.

wretcheddomain

ciarawira wrote: »

Excuse me but i am neither a thug or riff raff nor did i behave in such a manner! I protest the charges because : 1. The water is sub-standered
2. The meters are sub-standered
and 3. We already pay for water through taxes!



What gives you the right to tar everyone with the same brush?

It takes a certain type of mentality for these people to make a holy show of themselves; the type that craves attention for being the 'rebel' in society.

Everybody else accepts that it isn't the most welcome form of tax but that ultimately it is necessary and has to be dealt with like responsible adults.

We can have our say at the next elections, rather than disrupting people from doing their jobs just because you lot have a permanent chip of entitlement on your shoulder.

On this basis, I'll tar you all twice with the same brush and still have lots left over for same.

KOTSC

wretcheddomain wrote: »

It takes a certain type of mentality for these people to make a holy show of themselves; the type that craves attention for being the 'rebel' in society.

Everybody else accepts that it isn't the most welcome form of tax but that ultimately it is necessary and has to be dealt with like responsible adults.
.

You havent been looking at the recent polls,

The impending water charges have emerged as the most hated of all the Government's crippling austerity measures.

More than a third (37 per cent) of voters put the water levy on top of their wish list of taxes they want to see reversed, above cuts to discretionary medical cards (33 per cent) and the despised property tax (22 per cent).

Confirmation of the deep dissatisfaction over water charges will be viewed with alarm by the Government parties..

cant post links not enough posts, quote I posted is from article (Shock poll: voters tell Joan Burton to end austerity or leave Government )

Coat22

KOTSC wrote: »

You havent been looking at the recent polls,



cant post links not enough posts, quote I posted is from article (Shock poll: voters tell Joan Burton to end austerity or leave Government )

Of course this is the most hated of all austerity measures because there is no getting away from this one boys and girls. Not like USC, abolishing the PRSI ceiling and a property tax that only 50% of the country have to pay. This one is for everyone – no exceptions (yet) for the council house dwellers, those on undeclared income etc. The coping classes are not going to have to shoulder this one all on their own and its hurting the noisy neighbours

PropJoe10

wretcheddomain wrote: »

It takes a certain type of mentality for these people to make a holy show of themselves; the type that craves attention for being the 'rebel' in society.

Everybody else accepts that it isn't the most welcome form of tax but that ultimately it is necessary and has to be dealt with like responsible adults.

We can have our say at the next elections, rather than disrupting people from doing their jobs just because you lot have a permanent chip of entitlement on your shoulder.

On this basis, I'll tar you all twice with the same brush and still have lots left over for same.

Thats a contender for the most arrogant, self righteous post of the year so far. Nice work!

wretcheddomain

KOTSC wrote: »

You havent been looking at the recent polls,



cant post links not enough posts, quote I posted is from article (Shock poll: voters tell Joan Burton to end austerity or leave Government )

I'd be among their number in opposing such charges but that's a world away from riff-raff stirring up trouble. The vast majority are in the former category, as your poll suggests, while the riff-raff are a small minority that are basically adults acting like children throwing their toys out of the pram as soon as their told to finish playing the PlayStation and eat some broccoli.

KOTSC

And that wasnt the only recent poll showing that a good per % of people oppose water charges.

76pc say water charges unfair

Article (Public rage at water charges speeding Sinn Fein rise)

Sparks43

Passed by the protests earlier and Tbh all I seen were thugs and mouthy slappers

Should be shot on sight.

Joe Exotic

KOTSC wrote: »

And that wasnt the only recent poll showing that a good per % of people oppose water charges.



Article (Public rage at water charges speeding Sinn Fein rise)

I know you said you cant link but can you tell us your sources.

Thanks

KOTSC

murphk wrote: »

I know you said you cant link but can you tell us your sources.

Thanks

Google the article titles I put in brackets in my last two posts.

Lofty123

Will there be water meters on halting sites? (Wouldn't like to be the workers trying to install them!) And how will it be calculated who pays what? Just asking....

Uriel.

ciarawira wrote: »

ok i apologise i should of said the "cover" instead of the meter itself!

So in what way is the cover harmful, dangerous or substandard?

scuba8

user2011 wrote: »

3min video posted on liveleak, if you can get past the dub accent you'll be fine :P

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ce_1402567031

Just watched this vid. One of the protesters is smoking. He obviously does not mind spending almost €10 a packet to pollute the place but still complains they can't afford taxes

Chucky the tree

PropJoe10 wrote: »

I'm sure they are indeed preventing a crime. Doesnt say much for them if it requires (at least) 5 of them to be standing there though.

So one Garda should be able to take on a crowd of 5+ people, right...

B.A._Baracus

I hate the idea of water charges. People pay tax so the service of having fresh water in the tap should be free. As it was for many years. But the sad reality is that these meters are in. They cost the government alot of money doing so. They are going to get their return.

Uriel.

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I hate the idea of water charges. People pay tax so the service of having fresh water in the tap should be free. As it was for many years. But the sad reality is that these meters are in. They cost the government alot of money doing so. They are going to get their return.

When it comes to resources such as water people should pay for the service they use, as they use it - not some blanket cost to the exchequer. Paying for service on a polluter pays principle basis, helps to reduce waste, but also allows better management of finances. Why should a one person household pay the same as a 6 person household?

The more services that go this direction, coupled with reductions in general taxation the better we as a nation can finance our services and manage our national budget.

blackwhite

BMJD wrote: »

that depends entirely on its usage; a parked-up car isn't polluting at all

And a car that's parked up off the road can be exempted from motor tax.
You only need to pay motor tax if you want to use it on the road (i.e. start polluting).