***ALL THINGS IRISH WATER/WATER CHARGE RELATED POST HERE***

listermint

Rosa Hot Lumberman wrote: »

I'd love to know these services which are being provided for rural people over urban, because I don't see them. Living in an urban area demonstrates how little is actually provided for rural people compared to those in urban areas.

You are driving on them everyday, Your Kids (should you have them are in them) Your local towns up keep Your nearest Hospital.

You hardly assumed your county was paying for this stuff on its own 2 legs? No because quite rightly the larger urban areas are and do give major assistance.

That is the long and short of it.

Banjo String

Rosa Hot Lumberman wrote: »

I'm certainly confused? There is no connection at all between your reply and my post.

I completely disagree.

Why should an urban dweller get free water while a country person is forced to pay for it. Both pay the same taxes so why should you be provided with free water and not the person living rurally?

Replace "water" with any of the services I listed below, and how people who might not necessarily be availing of them still contribute.

So people should pay less if they've no kids for child benefit /education? 
Anyone paying private health insurance, should get a proportionate rebate, from any hse contributions? 
People not owning cars? 
I don't go to a library. Where's my rebate for those taxes

_Kaiser_

If you're complaining about the cost of your well you should remember that you CHOSE to live in the middle of nowhere, and while that's certainly your right, part of the trade-off for the "peace and quiet", "nice views", "bigger house" or whatever is that the services will cost more to provide. Your bigger house probably cost a lot less too.

People living in urban areas face higher property costs, a higher cost of living generally, and because of the raw numbers (as listermint demonstrated above) actually receive far less proportionally for their money.

Bottom line here - as with so much else in this country- is that there are too many people who expect first-class services for themselves.. as long as SOMEONE ELSE pays for it.

Then there's pure old Irish begrudgery where people think that because they're lucky enough to have a job, they get to look down on those who don't because of the abuse of a (relative) few.
Ironically I'd wager that these same people would be the first to whinge about the conditions if they had to survive on it themselves. (transparency: I'm working and pay everything but get fook all for it as an unmarried single male in the PAYE system - but I wouldn't have the NECK to come out with some of the stuff I've read here! Some posters would have the unemployed living on food stamps in camps if they had their way!)

Ultimately the ones making and profiting from these decisions, driving this "us vs them" shyte, sit back and laugh as the peasants fight over the scraps... although (refreshingly albeit belatedly) in the case of IW here, it seems that they may have pushed many people a little too far this time.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

You are driving on them everyday, Your Kids (should you have them are in them) Your local towns up keep Your nearest Hospital.

You hardly assumed your county was paying for this stuff on its own 2 legs? No because quite rightly the larger urban areas are and do give major assistance.

That is the long and short of it.

Country roads are crap and rural users pay their car tax and spend a lot of money on petrol which means more tax also. The road into my home place was mostly funded by the locals out of their own pocket as the country council would only give a limited amount and we do most of the maintenance ourselves.

Schools are irrelevant as they are provided to both urban and rural dwellers.

Nearest hospital is in the city centre so no different to urban dwellers.

The Local town gets feck all from the council I can tell you.

I don't really see the point you are trying to make. On an individual basis one city person vs one rural person all the above makes no difference what matters is whats in their pocket at the end of the month, both pay taxes and either some of the taxes should cover water for both or else both should pay water charges.

Banjo String wrote: »

Replace "water" with any of the services I listed below, and how people who might not necessarily be availing of them still contribute.

I really don't see your point. I never said anyone should pick and choose the taxes they pay I said either taxes should cover the cost of water for both sets of people or both should have to pay towards them to some degree.

listermint

Rosa Hot Lumberman wrote: »

Country roads are crap and rural users pay their car tax and spend a lot of money on petrol which means more tax also. The road into my home place was mostly funded by the locals out of their own pocket as the country council would only give a limited amount and we do most of the maintenance ourselves.

Schools are irrelevant as they are provided to both urban and rural dwellers.

Nearest hospital is in the city centre so no different to urban dwellers.

The Local town gets feck all from the council I can tell you.

I don't really see the point you are trying to make. On an individual basis one city person vs one rural person all the above makes no difference what matters is whats in their pocket at the end of the month, both pay taxes and either some of the taxes should cover water for both or else both should pay water charges.

you've provided no facts, just your opinion. That spend per head is there for all to see. I suggest you look it up and stop feeling sorry about your lot in life.

SaveOurLyric

Banjo String wrote: »

So people should pay less if they've no kids for child benefit /education?
Anyone paying private health insurance, should get a proportionate rebate, from any hse contributions?
People not owning cars?
I don't go to a library. Where's my rebate for those taxes

Follow the fairness line and people shouuld get child benefit whether they have children or not.

al22

Fairness would be no tax credits, no allowances, no social welfare etc unless one is really unfit to work, sick, disabled and and old age pensioner. No minimum wages/income guaranteed. :-)

Banjo String

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Follow the fairness line and people shouuld get child benefit whether they have children or not.

Or whether they need it or not.

Tony EH

al22 wrote: »

Fairness would be no tax credits, no allowances, no social welfare etc unless one is really unfit to work, sick, disabled and and old age pensioner. No minimum wages/income guaranteed. :-)

No, that would be the 19th Century.

Iwasfrozen

Tony EH wrote: »

No, that would be the 19th Century.

The majority of human history actually and probably the majority of our future.

Tony EH

The majority of human history, for the majority of humans, was nothing to write home about.

Iwasfrozen

Tony EH wrote: »

The majority of human history, for the majority of humans, was nothing to write home about.

No it wasn't, and in the future as the difference between wealthy and poor nations gets smaller it may be necessary to disband the welfare state.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

you've provided no facts, just your opinion. That spend per head is there for all to see. I suggest you look it up and stop feeling sorry about your lot in life.

I'm not feeling sorry at all. There was no protests when people on group water schemes started to be metered despite income taxes the water up to that point, i.e. no different to whats happening now to everyone else.

All I'm saying is if people living in a city claim that their taxes should cover water supply (which I think it should) then people living rurally should also have their water supplied or if one pays then both should pay.

If you live in the city and pay x amount of tax and expect free water and I live in the country and pay the exact same amount of tax why on earth would you think its fair that I should pay for water and you shouldn't.

Ireland would fall to its knees without the country and agriculture urban dwellers should remember that and despite your claim its very clear that the vast majority of investment in this country is in urban areas and rural areas are more or less forgotten about.

Tony EH

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No it wasn't, and in the future as the difference between wealthy and poor nations gets smaller it may be necessary to disband the welfare state.

The gaps between rich and poor are widening.

listermint

Rosa Hot Lumberman wrote: »

I'm not feeling sorry at all. There was no protests when people on group water schemes started to be metered despite income taxes the water up to that point, i.e. no different to whats happening now to everyone else.

All I'm saying is if people living in a city claim that their taxes should cover water supply (which I think it should) then people living rurally should also have their water supplied or if one pays then both should pay.

If you live in the city and pay x amount of tax and expect free water and I live in the country and pay the exact same amount of tax why on earth would you think its fair that I should pay for water and you shouldn't.

Ireland would fall to its knees without the country and agriculture urban dwellers should remember that and despite your claim its very clear that the vast majority of investment in this country is in urban areas and rural areas are more or less forgotten about.

You are trying to dress up your version of fairness as being legitmate. You have yet to answer my question. If we followed your version of fairness then Urban people pay the same property tax value as you and urban taxes are kept local to urban areas.

This has nothing to do with agricultural exports btw. I am merely following your line of 'fairness' which i am still struggling to see how you think people on their own wells are being ripped off when they are benefiting massively from the urban money fund.

Iwasfrozen

Tony EH wrote: »

The gaps between rich and poor are widening.

The gaps between rich and poor nations are shrinking, countries like India, China, Bangladesh, Brazil and Indonesia are seeing a growing middle class.

BoJack Horseman

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The gaps between rich and poor nations are shrinking, countries like India, China, Bangladesh, Brazil and Indonesia are seeing a growing middle class.

In the west it is widening though.

Iwasfrozen

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

In the west it is widening though.

Yes, but as I said "in the future as the difference between wealthy and poor nations gets smaller it may be necessary to disband the welfare state."

We just don't have the energy output to give eveeyone a western standard of living, and short of something game changing like nuclear fusion we never will, and even then it depends on the form of the technology.

Smidge

Tony EH wrote: »

The gaps between rich and poor are widening.

It's becoming a great big bloody chasm in the western world. Ireland is a wonderful example of this especially since the reign of Haughey.

On a side note. ..
I read yesterday that Ireland was in the top ten places to visit in 2015. We were number five. Something to bolster our ego, eh?
Not when you saw who else was on the list.
Singapore IIRC was number one which is totally fine.
But also on the list was Nicaragua, the Congo and several other places that have over recent years been war torn and would still be considered risky for travel.

I guess it is all about the company you keep :D

maximo31

gladrags wrote: »

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-new-water-barons-wall-street-mega-banks-are-buying-up-the-worlds-water/5383274

Lot of information out there on this.

Wow. That was very interesting. Shows how little we minions matter in the great scheme of things!!

BoJack Horseman

maximo31 wrote: »

Wow. That was very interesting. Shows how little we minions matter in the great scheme of things!!

Reminds me of "Quantum of Solace".

Food for thought for SF supporters, if the party carry their privatisation plan for IW into the next general election.

Chance The Fapper

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Reminds me of "Quantum of Solace".

Food for thought for SF supporters, if the party carry their privatisation plan for IW into the next general election.

Do you have a link?

Cantona's Collars

I wonder why all the pro water charges crew here automatically assume those of us opposed to this Double Tax are Sinn Fein supporters.
Do they not realise that we are actually anti quango,old boy's club backhander campaigners.
You don't need to be affiliated to any party to oppose injustice.

BoJack Horseman

Chance The Fapper wrote: »

Do you have a link?

Policy document:
http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2014/WaterServicesDoc_2014.pdf

How SF intend to fund it:
the status quo, plus some debt, plus something new.......

» Funding should be generated through mixed income of which the majority is through public subsidy from the Government, in addition to non-domestic charges, commercial borrowing and equity investment

The 'who' & 'what' equity will be invested in remains unconfirmed.
However its assumed they mean, split infrastructure from "customer supply" & sell that part off ala BGE

Tony EH

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The gaps between rich and poor nations are shrinking, countries like India, China, Bangladesh, Brazil and Indonesia are seeing a growing middle class.

Ummm, When looking at "Nations" as monolithic entities, it may look like it's ostensibly shrinking, but on a people level, it's widening, especially in the west.

cajonlardo

zerks wrote: »

I wonder why all the pro water charges crew here automatically assume those of us opposed to this Double Tax are Sinn Fein supporters.
Do they not realise that we are actually anti quango,old boy's club backhander campaigners.
You don't need to be affiliated to any party to oppose injustice.

They do not actually believe that, they just post it.
If they shout load enough they intimidate meeker people to stay away from the marches and keep their mouths shut. As long as the gravey train rolls a bit further.

Before the last march they were on here shiiiite talking ( they are VERY good at that) about Eirigi and Jesse James and the ripper will be turning up - all to scare ordinary decent people away. It didn't work. Perhaps they will grow tired of their ways, I know most people have.

If there really were 100,000 subversives they would have marched into Gvt Buildings long ago without a shot fired.

zerks

zerks wrote: »

I wonder why all the pro water charges crew here automatically assume those of us opposed to this Double Tax are.

Your post wasn't directed at me but I would just to point out in case anyone is misinterpreting my views, I am not in favour of water charges but its even more unfair if some have to pay and others don't based on where they live. All this marching and stuff is just nonsensical though that I do agree with as the time for getting up in arms over it was a long time ago and like the property tax people are all talk and they will pay or it will just be taken off them.

BoJack Horseman

zerks wrote: »

You don't need to be affiliated to any party to oppose injustice.

The status quo is more unjust than people paying for their own usage.

'Everybody' paying is fairer than the current 'many' paying.

(As I've stated a before, I support the supply & financing of water services being taken away from politicians & centralised.....
I would have preferred an independent statutory agency rather than a company though.)

Curly Judge

zerks wrote: »

I wonder why all the pro water charges crew here automatically assume those of us opposed to this Double Tax are Sinn Fein supporters.
Do they not realise that we are actually anti quango,old boy's club backhander campaigners.
You don't need to be affiliated to any party to oppose injustice.

Since when is paying for what you consume an injustice?

Cantona's Collars

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The status quo is more unjust than people paying for their own usage.

'Everybody' paying is fairer than the current 'many' paying.

(As I've stated a before, I support the supply & financing of water services being taken away from politicians & centralised.....
I would have preferred an independent statutory agency rather than a company though.)

Have a look at what's happening in Detroit when the provision of water was handed over to another entity rather than the LA there.27,000 cut off for non payment of fees that have skyrocketed in the past few years in one of the poorest areas of the USA.
Ireland used to have a fair way for the payment of services,you pay tax & the money pays for water,roads,etc. Now it's pay tax then pay to live in your house,pay for refuse collection & now pay for water.If the much hated USC was out towards services then we'd see no outcry as people would say "fair enough",so far for all these extra charges nothing has improved & councils are still going with the begging bowl for funding.
Imagine if all the money wasted setting up this quango was divided out to LA's around Ireland and a certain amount ringfenced for water network upgrades.But no! There has to be vested interests having their pockets lined & the trough filled for the snouts to dip in and grab what they can.