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

Banjo String

geeksauce wrote: »

Not talking about the long term sick or those genuinely unable to work, I am talking about the others that have no reasonable excuse for remaining on Social Welfare other than they don't want to work. People such as your father are at risk of having their social welfare cut because of the amount of people on it and the need to reduce the welfare bill, meaning the genuine recipients are being screwed by the others playing the system.

This also is true in our public and civil service workforce tbh.

Too many not needed/dead wood being paid 30-40% more than their European counterparts.

Of course, if the water charges get abolishes, they face these cuts too.

lacco

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And?

There is no And.

Recondite49

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And?

...And therefore it should be paid for out of the public purse from general taxation - From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs as the saying goes, so you know even people who are on low incomes or those who are likely to use more water like the elderly don't have to go without...

Surely not too controversial an idea?

Recondite49

I've been asked to clarify why the elderly would need to use more water than anyone else. The reason is they're more likely to spend time at home so will use the water there than in the workplace or in some social venue. If they're anything like my Dad as well they'll need to nip to the loo more often due to erratic bladders and flush away 10 litres of water a time..

Timberrrrrrrr

Recondite49 wrote: »

...And therefore it should be paid for out of the public purse from general taxation - From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs as the saying goes, so you know even people who are on low incomes or those who are likely to use more water like the elderly don't have to go without...

Surely not too controversial an idea?

So the taxpayers should continue to pay for the people who don't work? And where will this money come from? Raise taxes another 2 or 3% maybe? :rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr

lacco wrote: »

There is no And.

So you just threw this out without a point?

lacco wrote: »

WATER IS NOT A PRIVILEGE.

Resolution 64/292 adopted by UN General assembly on 28th July 2010

it ' recognizes the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of the right to life.'

geeksauce

Recondite49 wrote: »

Ah, the classic right wing fallacy of drawing a distinction between a supposedly deserving and undeserving poor. So old.

So old eh? So you think someone genuinely unable to work and someone able to work but just cant be bothered are the same?

If the person able to work and choosing not to work is poor then they only have themselves to blame for that one i'm afraid. Got forbid though the auld socialists get upset about somebody saying such a person should get off their ass and get to work, stop freeloading from the state.

geeksauce

Banjo String wrote: »

This also is true in our public and civil service workforce tbh.

Too many not needed/dead wood being paid 30-40% more than their European counterparts.

Of course, if the water charges get abolishes, they face these cuts too.

Not going to happen.

Recondite49

geeksauce wrote: »

So old eh? So you think someone genuinely unable to work and someone able to work but just cant be bothered are the same?

If the person able to work and choosing not to work is poor then they only have themselves to blame for that one i'm afraid. Got forbid though the auld socialists get upset about somebody saying such a person should get off their ass and get to work, stop freeloading from the state.

It's simply a distinction you've invented it has little basis in truth and also nothing to do with the matter at hand. If we force people on welfare to pay for water then it'll inflict suffering on all poor people, including those freeloaders you right wingers seem to think are hiding in every nook and cranny as well as what you seem to consider the more deserving poor.

lacco

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you just threw this out without a point?

The UN resolution is THE POINT.

geeksauce

lacco wrote: »

WATER IS NOT A PRIVILEGE.

Resolution 64/292 adopted by UN General assembly on 28th July 2010

it ' recognizes the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of the right to life.'

People will still be provided with water whether they pay their bill or not, therefore their right to water is being met.

If they don't pay their bill they will not be supplied with the same pressure of water as those that do, they will have their supply restricted, it will be a privilege to have a full unrestricted supply one which can be availed of by paying the water bill.

It really is quite a simple concept.

seamus

lacco wrote: »

WATER IS NOT A PRIVILEGE.

Resolution 64/292 adopted by UN General assembly on 28th July 2010

it ' recognizes the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of the right to life.'

Funnily enough, if you actually look at the details of that UN resolution, the "right to water" is defined as

the right of everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable and physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses.

Which makes explicit recognition of the fact that water can or should be charged for, but those charges should not be prohibitively expensive.

Specifically the cost of water should not exceed 3% of household income.

Details here:
http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/human_right_to_water.shtml

So I'm afraid there is no reason to believe that the right to water includes the right to charge-free water.

After all, the UN also recognises the right of all humans to have access to food, but we never discuss paying for everyones' dinners out of the general taxation pot.

geeksauce

Recondite49 wrote: »

It's simply a distinction you've invented it has little basis in truth and also nothing to do with the matter at hand. If we force people on welfare to pay for water then it'll inflict suffering on all poor people, including those freeloaders you right wingers seem to think are hiding in every nook and cranny as well as what you seem to consider the more deserving poor.

Invented eh? So you are telling me then that there isn't even a single person out there capable of working but deciding against it because they want to remain on social welfare? Seriously please don't tell me this is actually what you believe, I may wet myself laughing if that is the case.

If those freeloaders actually got off their asses and went off to work, the state would have far more money in their coffers to help the poor.

lacco

Recondite49 wrote: »

It's simply a distinction you've invented it has little basis in truth and also nothing to do with the matter at hand. If we force people on welfare to pay for water then it'll inflict suffering on all poor people, including those freeloaders you right wingers seem to think are hiding in every nook and cranny as well as what you seem to consider the more deserving poor.

The right wingers here have a flagrant disregard for their fellow human beings.
They simply do not care.
Smug is the word that comes to mind.

geeksauce

lacco wrote: »

The right wingers general population have a flagrant disregard for the fellow human beingsfreeloaders in society.
They simply do not care.
Smug is the word that comes to mind.

Fixed that for you.

Timberrrrrrrr

lacco wrote: »

The UN resolution is THE POINT.

The UN resolution states that

Resolution 64/292 adopted by UN General assembly on 28th July 2010

it ' recognizes the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of the right to life.'

you are entitled to fresh clean water, IW is providing that. What's your point?

geeksauce

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The UN resolution states that



you are entitled to fresh clean water, IW is providing that. What's your point?

I think their point is rabble rabble rabble.

Little CuChulainn

Recondite49 wrote: »

...And therefore it should be paid for out of the public purse from general taxation - From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs as the saying goes, so you know even people who are on low incomes or those who are likely to use more water like the elderly don't have to go without...

Surely not too controversial an idea?

Well unfortunately at this time we have too many people in so called "need" and not enough people to support them. I, for one, am tired of seeing so much welfare spent on people who, quite frankly, don't deserve it. Unless there is some kind of meaningful reform of the welfare system so that money goes to the right people I'll have no issues with a system of charges and taxes based on what I consume and don't consume as long as it is offset by reduced taxes on my income.

lacco

Seamus, I said ' right.'
No where in that post did I say right to free water.
That was your own inference.

seamus

lacco wrote: »

Seamus, I said ' right.'
No where in that post did I say right to free water.
That was your own inference.

Apologies, I was really responding to later posters who claimed that this right inferred that water should be funded by the state, your post just seemed like the right one to respond to.

Little CuChulainn

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Well unfortunately at this time we have too many people in so called "need" and not enough people to support them. I, for one, am tired of seeing so much welfare spent on people who, quite frankly, don't deserve it. Unless there is some kind of meaningful reform of the welfare system so that money goes to the right people I'll have no issues with a system of charges and taxes based on what I consume and don't consume as long as it is offset by reduced taxes on my income.

What's really peeing me off is the amount of Garda time and resources being wasted on these politically motivated demonstrations.

Geuze

For people who keep saying "we are paying twice".

The total cost to provide water + wastewater = 1.2bn, we have over 1,000 treatment plants, I think.


2013 Govt revenues = 58,866m

2013 Govt expenditures = 70,371m

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/gfsa/governmentfinancestatisticsapril2014/#.VC09GvldWSo

2013 GG deficit = 11,778m


So we use taxes + borrowings to cover the 1.2bn cost.

From 2015 onwards we will use tax + less borrowings + new charges to cover the cost.

You won't be paying twice.

We will be paying more in taxes + charges.

We will be borrowing less.

oceanman

[QUOTE=Little CuChulainn;92442200 I'll have no issues with a system of charges and taxes based on what I consume and don't consume as long as it is offset by reduced taxes on my income.[/QUOTE]
and you really think that's going to happen!

Timberrrrrrrr

lacco wrote: »

Seamus, I said ' right.'
No where in that post did I say right to free water.
That was your own inference.

So we agree that water is a human right, and we agree that IW will not be infringing upon that human right. So what was the point of quoting the UN?

ThisRegard

oceanman wrote: »

and you really think that's going to happen!

Noonan today has hinted at it happening.

Little CuChulainn

oceanman wrote: »

and you really think that's going to happen!

I'm not going to assume it's not. There's plenty to suggest it will.

seamus

oceanman wrote: »

and you really think that's going to happen!

There's a general election on the horizon, if not next year than in 2016. The next budget(s) will be favourable to income tax payers. That's not optimism, that's actually me being cynical.

VinLieger

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So we agree that water is a human right, and we agree that IW will not be infringing upon that human right. So what was the point of quoting the UN?

How are they infringing on the right to have water? They are supplying it still aren't they?

Just cus its a human right does not remove the fact that collecting it, storing it, cleaning it and distributing it costs money to do.

mynameismud

Deleted User wrote: »

If it's yellow, let it mellow.!

What you would save in not flushing you will spend on air freshener unless you like to have your house smell of pi55

Deleted User wrote: »

If it's brown, flush it down!

If its brown put it in a box and send it to John Tierney

lacco

Any of you seen what's happening in Detroit.
Don't have enough posts so can't put up any links.
The water system is heading towards privitisation.
People are having their water shut off for owing bills for as little as $150 dollars.
That's wrong.