Off Topic Thread too point uh

irishbucsfan

swiwi_ wrote: »

It's a dentist's wetdream. That's all I'm saying.

NB: when did you last go the dentist

Dentists are just a conspiracy created by the foreigners to take our money, would never catch me in one of those, have you never seen Little Shop of Horrors!?

Bazzo

swiwi_ wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

These foreigners come to our country, insult our women, and then feck off to the next place. Ya bleedin mercenary

It's a dentist's wetdream. That's all I'm saying.

NB: when did you last go the dentist

That is pretty rank.

I go to the hygienist for a clean once a year. Aside from a couple of fillings I got from eating mountains of ****e as a young lad my teeth are in pretty good nick. I like straight, white teeth, but some Americans particularly tend to go overboard with the whitening and end up with a mouth you could use to steer ships clear of rocks...

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

swiwi_ wrote: »

Trust me TMO, if you have cancer, you definitely want at least the initial diagnosis and treatment plan made in a university hospital. There're plenty of figures showing better treatment outcomes.

But afterwards, I agree that Tx should be able to take place locally.

And OK, so you brush and floss well. My compliments.

Plenty of hospitals oversee treatments in other locations. I had a friend who was in a car accident and was in too serious a condition to be flown to Beaumont so the doctor there oversaw all his treatment over the phone, so to speak.

The point is they should have the facilities in the NW. They say the population is too small to justify it but there's an extraordinarily high percentage of people in the NW, Donegal in particular, who have cancer. I don't want to sound like I wear a tinfoil hat but people talk about the sheep up there showing sings of radiation from Chernobyl, it's not too far off the map to think it could have impacted in other ways too.

But anyway..... this is just one example of something that people should be getting worked up about to the same degree as they have about Irish Water. I'm sure if you talk to any number of other groups of people there are a lot of serious issues in other places that are being ignored too.

Teferi

Just saw Civil War. Captain America definitely has the strongest set of movies in the Marvel universe, really really good.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Made the mistake of Googling the ingredients of these tablets I take for migraines. One of them has a list of about 50 side effects including increased risk of death!

Buer

swiwi_ wrote: »

Anyway I remember staring at Shane Ross' election posters in Dundrum, and thinking those teeth are mustard coloured buddy.

His campaign against fluoride becomes more curious.

Buer

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

The point is they should have the facilities in the NW. They say the population is too small to justify it but there's an extraordinarily high percentage of people in the NW, Donegal in particular, who have cancer. I don't want to sound like I wear a tinfoil hat but people talk about the sheep up there showing sings of radiation from Chernobyl, it's not too far off the map to think it could have impacted in other ways too.

They should but it's not realistic. There's a pot of money and Donegal simply cannot justify such a specialised facility. The statistics don't support the claim that Donegal has even above average percentage of people who have cancer.

http://www.ncri.ie/sites/ncri/files/maps/All%20Invasive%201994-2013.jpg

Whilst a treatment facility should absolutely be available within 1 hour of everyone in the country, it's not going to happen in my lifetime.

I'll leave the welfare of the sheep to someone more agriculturally minded!

irishbucsfan

Buer wrote: »

They should but it's not realistic. There's a pot of money and Donegal simply cannot justify such a specialised facility. The statistics don't support the claim that Donegal has even above average percentage of people who have cancer.

http://www.ncri.ie/sites/ncri/files/maps/All%20Invasive%201994-2013.jpg

Whilst a treatment facility should absolutely be available within 1 hour of everyone in the country, it's not going to happen in my lifetime.

I'll leave the welfare of the sheep to someone more agriculturally minded!

Jaysus the 6 counties are doing well on that map, fair play.

Buer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Jaysus the 6 counties are doing well on that map, fair play.

No fluoride in the water, don't ya know.

OldRio

Buer wrote: »

They should but it's not realistic. There's a pot of money and Donegal simply cannot justify such a specialised facility. The statistics don't support the claim that Donegal has even above average percentage of people who have cancer.

http://www.ncri.ie/sites/ncri/files/maps/All%20Invasive%201994-2013.jpg

Whilst a treatment facility should absolutely be available within 1 hour of everyone in the country, it's not going to happen in my lifetime.

I'll leave the welfare of the sheep to someone more agriculturally minded!

It takes an hour just to get to the nearest hospital from our location. Heaven help anyone who gets poorly outside of doctors surgery times. Yet I can get a vet 24 hours a day if I have an emergency on the farm.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Buer wrote: »

They should but it's not realistic. There's a pot of money and Donegal simply cannot justify such a specialised facility. The statistics don't support the claim that Donegal has even above average percentage of people who have cancer.

http://www.ncri.ie/sites/ncri/files/maps/All%20Invasive%201994-2013.jpg

Whilst a treatment facility should absolutely be available within 1 hour of everyone in the country, it's not going to happen in my lifetime.

I'll leave the welfare of the sheep to someone more agriculturally minded!

Those stats are up to 2003. And it's not just for Donegal, it's for the NW. Parts of Sligo and Leitrim would be nearer to Donegal than they are to Galway.

The government have been promising a facility in Derry, our lot were supposed to co fund it and people from Donegal/Sligo etc. would be sent there instead of Galway but it doesn't appear to be making any progress.

And even if an actual treatment facility is too much to ask funding a bus service shouldn't be. They stopped providing any financial help to the people running the bus so now the people suffering from cancer have to raise the money themselves to keep it running. If you read the article I linked you'll see the government suggested they just use public transport instead, which basically means a 5 hour trip on Bus Eireann, non stop, which isn't possible for a lot of people.

But as a said this is just one specific example of the Government letting it's people down badly. Look at the new Children's Hospital and where it's being built to see how much consideration they give to anyone outside of Dublin.

And the original point was there are, in my opinion, a lot of things far more important than the water rates that people should be taking the Government to task over.

Synode

Yeah but water charges are directly forcing people to open their wallets. People care more about that than they do about other people having to get busses for cancer treatment. At least until something like that directly affects themself. Irish people just don't have a sense for the bigger picture

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Synode wrote: »

Yeah but water charges are directly forcing people to open their wallets. People care more about that than they do about other people having to get busses for cancer treatment. At least until something like that directly affects themself. Irish people just don't have a sense for the bigger picture

That's it in a nutshell.

But again you wonder why they didn't kick up a fuss about the USC or property tax. Even now why not say okay, we'll pay for the water we use but we demand the property tax is scrapped. It just baffles me what people choose to get worked up about.

CatFromHue

The USC was at a time when our country was falling apart right in front of our eyes so was easier to stomach.

Felix Jones is God

Abolish USC, Keep taking the payments and give it to Irish water, those who are already paying can afford to keep on doing so

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

CatFromHue wrote: »

The USC was at a time when our country was falling apart right in front of our eyes so was easier to stomach.

Yeah, I hear that argument a lot about the water charges, it's the straw that broke the camel's back, and fair enough, but the overall issue is money coming out of our pockets. So why has no politician been brave enough to suggest we keep the water charges and get rid of property tax. I'm fairly sure we can't actually do away with the water charges because we signed up to an EU policy on conservation of water so why do people insist on flogging a dead horse? I'd have been far more inclined to vote for a party that said they wanted to get rid of property tax or USC than one promising to do the impossible with the water.


Anyway... getting a bit too political now. So..... cats?

CatFromHue

the defence and reason of the water charges has been pathetic at best.

from what I saw the non TD's put up the best reasoning, Colm McCarthy and some lad from a water discussion group.

to me it's a no brainer of a charge

Podge_irl

CatFromHue wrote: »

the defence and reason of the water charges has been pathetic at best.

from what I saw the non TD's put up the best reasoning, Colm McCarthy and some lad from a water discussion group.

to me it's a no brainer of a charge

I guess the difference between it and the USC is that it is money coming out of your pocket which maybe feels worse than money deducted before you ever see it.

But yeah, as far as I'm concerned it's no different from an ESB charge. Even those in favour of it would presumably agree the whole thing has been handled cack-handedly.

Anyway...running my first marathon tomorrow. Was already nervous and now Geneva has decided now is the perfect time to hit summer so will be over 20 degrees while running. Balls.

Zzippy

Good luck Podge!

irishbucsfan

Team Podge

errlloyd

The difference between usc and water chargers is one is a flat rate and one is a percentage of income.

Michael O Leary and I pay the same water tax. We pay vastly different USC.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

errlloyd wrote: »

The difference between usc and water chargers is one is a flat rate and one is a percentage of income.

Michael O Leary and I pay the same water tax. We pay vastly different USC.

Water rates shouldn't be flat rate though.

irishbucsfan

errlloyd wrote: »

The difference between usc and water chargers is one is a flat rate and one is a percentage of income.

Michael O Leary and I pay the same water tax. We pay vastly different USC.

Water charges are based on consumption, or should be! USC is not.

pickarooney

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Water rates shouldn't be flat rate though.

Sparkling?

Buer

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I'd have been far more inclined to vote for a party that said they wanted to get rid of property tax or USC than one promising to do the impossible with the water.


Anyway... getting a bit too political now. So..... cats?

The funny thing is, abolishing the USC is far more unlikely than water. The tax revenue take in 2015 was €46.5bn. USC brings in around €4bn. It's simply not feasible to discard with the USC now without years of planning. Our economy would be plunged into crisis overnight if we lost 10% of our tax revenue.

The likes of the AAA campaigned for slashing the USC to the tune of €2bn. Complete nonsense. I was impressed with Stephen Donnelly who called a spade a spade on the matter and highlighted that the eradication of the USC was fantasy stuff.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Buer wrote: »

The funny thing is, abolishing the USC is far more unlikely than water. The tax revenue take in 2015 was €46.5bn. USC brings in around €4bn. It's simply not feasible to discard with the USC now without years of planning. Our economy would be plunged into crisis overnight if we lost 10% of our tax revenue.

My understanding of the water charges is that they literally cannot be abolished. We agreed to introducing them way back in the early 2000's as part of an EU directive to monitor and reduce waste of water. The government kept putting off introducing them until the bailout happened and then we were "forced" to, which worked out well because everyone now associates them with the IMF and Angela Merkel and what have you.

The best solution, in my opinion, to the water issue is to switch the bloody meters on and to make people pay for what they're using.

Bazzo

Metering water usage and paying something towards upkeep of the infrastructure has always made sense to me and I've never had a problem with it, but the manner in which the government went about implementing it was such an astounding display of incompetence(to be generous) that it was doomed from day 1.

errlloyd

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Water charges are based on consumption, or should be! USC is not.

I agree completely. It should be metered, that's the point. Even if it was though it'd still be a tax that his low income earners harder (proportionally) than usc.

At the moment water is paid for out of the exchequer, which basically means 10 percent of the population pay 80 of it and 50 percent pay almost nothing. By changing it to water metres they're massively shifting the cost for water from weathier families to poorer ones. The reason why middle class people are cool with water chargers is becuase if you're a high earner paying for them this way effectively saves you money (assuming the extra revenue comes back to you in the shape of the usc cut everyone is so fond of suggesting).

irishbucsfan

errlloyd wrote: »

I agree completely. It should be metered, that's the point. Even if it was though it'd still be a tax that his low income earners harder (proportionally) than usc.

At the moment water is paid for out of the exchequer, which basically means 10 percent of the population pay 80 of it and 50 percent pay almost nothing. By changing it to water metres they're massively shifting the cost for water from weathier families to poorer ones. The reason why middle class people are cool with water chargers is becuase if you're a high earner paying for them this way effectively saves you money (assuming the extra revenue comes back to you in the shape of the usc cut everyone is so fond of suggesting).

That's the most basic nature of taxation based on consumption instead of production.

Also it's not the reason "middle class people are cool with water charges." That's a pretty sweeping statement.

errlloyd

For most people there is at minimum an awareness that it has to get paid for anyway, so we may as well pay for it in a way that has positive externalities for the environment. But at least a decent amount of Fine Gael voters are quite aware that flat rate charges on bins, water, council tax etc that have come in over the past decade generally hit lower income earners harder.

Again for the record. I support water chargers, but it's pretty obvious why people have a problem with them.

Synode

errlloyd wrote: »

The difference between usc and water chargers is one is a flat rate and one is a percentage of income.

Michael O Leary and I pay the same water tax. We pay vastly different USC.

Doubt it. Michael O Leary would likely have paid more water tax in a bigger property. Unless he made a conscious effort to conserve. In which case it's proper order that he's rewarded for it. Water tax should solely be based on usage. The progressive nature of income tax more than makes up for this

Dave_The_Sheep

My personal problem with the whole thing is I see it as a step on the road to eventual privatisation of our water supply, which is total bollocks. I've no problem with water charges, but I've massive problems with a privately run water charge system. I deliberately didn't pay my bill from when I registered in July-ish on the basis that I was waiting for the election, and it's worked out (or appears to be about to).

Funnily, a referendum to keep water from being privatised would have killed lots of the opposition to the charges amongst the non-midget-parasite-shouting segment of people who didn't pay their bills. Many people don't have a problem with the concept of paying for water, just the implementation of IW and the suspicion that down the line, DOB is going to be involved even further.

CatFromHue

Podge_irl wrote: »

Anyway...running my first marathon tomorrow. Was already nervous and now Geneva has decided now is the perfect time to hit summer so will be over 20 degrees while running. Balls.

Ha I'd the same the time I ran one.

I was living in Belfast and the marathon was at the start of April so as you can imagine I did all my training after work in the dark and cold, it was actually snowing one time.

Day of the marathon it was very bright, sunny and 20 deg c at 9am.

I was so worried about over heating that I drank loads of water which was a bad idea so how you manage your hydration will be pretty important. nothing worse than running with a belly full of water.

Also don't forget your sunglasses and maybe a hat too.

#TeamPodge

kuang1

Best o luck Podge!
Hope you're sound asleep by now!

CatFromHue

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

My personal problem with the whole thing is I see it as a step on the road to eventual privatisation of our water supply, which is total bollocks. I've no problem with water charges, but I've massive problems with a privately run water charge system. I deliberately didn't pay my bill from when I registered in July-ish on the basis that I was waiting for the election, and it's worked out (or appears to be about to).

Funnily, a referendum to keep water from being privatised would have killed lots of the opposition to the charges amongst the non-midget-parasite-shouting segment of people who didn't pay their bills. Many people don't have a problem with the concept of paying for water, just the implementation of IW and the suspicion that down the line, DOB is going to be involved even further.

May I ask why you think it'll be privatised?

I'm not speaking about you here but I've found the whole anti water movement to have very changeable reasons as to why they shouldn't pay. It's gone from water is a right to we pay already to DOB is a bad man to worries about privatisation and now to a just general anti govt anti authority group.

while no one gives a ****, no pun intended, about this

Raw sewage is being discharged into 45 rivers, lakes and coastal areas around the State, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has said.

The agency’s Urban Waste Water Report 2014 also found waste-water discharges contributed to “poor water quality” at seven of Ireland’s bathing spots.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/epa-report-highlights-raw-sewage-discharge-at-45-sites-1.2442460

Dave_The_Sheep

CatFromHue wrote: »

May I ask why you think it'll be privatised?

Just a general trend that seems to be happening globally, and I'm a cynical bastard. Oil is on the way out. What's the next single massive resource that can be privatised for profit? Water. It's happened in plenty of countries across the globe. Paris only recently took it's water supply back from the private interests that controlled it before now because of **** service and high costs, for example. I'm just a guy on the internet commenting. If I can see that a referendum to ensure that privatisation wouldn't happen would have saved the FG/Lab lads a lot of stress and votes, why didn't they do it? It just doesn't add up, for me.

I don't speak for the "whole anti water movement" (as to be fair you've said), but it's a fairly diverse group which does - I admit - contain the "don't-want-to-pay-for-anything-ever" group as much as it does others. I can only speak for myself as someone who isn't against water charges per se, but against this ham-fisted way of doing it - especially at a time when people have been squeezed enough.

Podge_irl

Still alive!!

Felix Jones is God

Podge_irl wrote: »

Still alive!!

Only another 25 miles to go, "You can do it Bobby Boucher"!

kuang1

Podge_irl wrote: »

Still alive!!

Never did one myself but how'd it go? Happy with yer performance / time?

Podge_irl

kuang1 wrote: »

Never did one myself but how'd it go? Happy with yer performance / time?

Happy enough. Last 10k was just plain unpleasant. Managed 4'03" which is slightly annoying but no way I could have gone quicker in that heat (and eh...with that level of training I guess).

I gotta say though it seriously gets tedious. Don't think I'll become a regular.

irishbucsfan

Ah you should just play rugby for Switzerland instead for your cardio

kuang1

Podge_irl wrote: »

Happy enough. Last 10k was just plain unpleasant. Managed 4'03" which is slightly annoying but no way I could have gone quicker in that heat (and eh...with that level of training I guess).

I gotta say though it seriously gets tedious. Don't think I'll become a regular.

Fair play!

No it's not on my bucket list now or ever.

thomond2006

GoT:

Good episode! Jon leaving the Night's Watch...I assume he goes back to Winterfell with a Wilding army to confront Ramsay. Arya regaining her sight was predictable. I'm really enjoying the Ned Stark flashbacks.

awec

Where is this bloody heat wave? :mad:

Zzippy

awec wrote: »

Where is this bloody heat wave? :mad:

Don't tell me you believed the hype? There was never a heatwave forecast, just some nicer, warmer weather. It's lovely and warm here, hazy sunshine. Perfect conditions...

awec

Zzippy wrote: »

Don't tell me you believed the hype? There was never a heatwave forecast, just some nicer, warmer weather. It's lovely and warm here, hazy sunshine. Perfect conditions...

It's raining here! Or at least it looks like it's about to rain heavily any moment.

Zzippy

awec wrote: »

It's raining here! Or at least it looks like it's about to rain heavily any moment.

Yep, looks like it's about to

http://www.met.ie/latest/rainfall_radar.asp

Bazzo

It's been in the low 20s for about 3 days here in the north of England I've been stuck inside hitting the books every day. I live in a high floor apartment so it's ****ing roasting too, never thought I'd see the day but I wish it was cloudy and raining...

Felix Jones is God

I had 27° for 4 days in Belgium, feckin marvellous!

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

I agree completely. It should be metered, that's the point. Even if it was though it'd still be a tax that his low income earners harder (proportionally) than usc.

Not a tax, a charge. Do you call food bills a 'food tax'?

It's an absolute truism that user-pays hits lower income earners harder proportionally. It's a great soundbite that is often used as some sort of emotional leverage, but it's not anything new.

It applies to absolutely everything! The TV Licence hits low income earners harder proportionally. Bus fares, train fares, taxi fares. Sweets, drinks, bread etc. Should food bills be based on a percentage of the person's income? Should electricity bills? What about gas and oil? Petrol? Why water and not these?

Mises Economic Calculation problem gives you the answer.

errlloyd wrote: »

At the moment water is paid for out of the exchequer, which basically means 10 percent of the population pay 80 of it and 50 percent pay almost nothing.

Why is this a good thing?
Ireland is a social democracy, those that genuinely cannot pay will be supported by the state to the extent that they will be able to afford the charges that have been directed upon them instead of the exchequer. There really would be no change in net position to a low income family (in the long run) who are not wasting water.

errlloyd wrote: »

By changing it to water metres they're massively shifting the cost for water from weathier families to poorer ones.

Except there were tax decreases and social welfare increases to offset the introduction of charges.

There is also the added benefit of getting rid of the tragedy-of-the-commons effect as people become more responsible for the water that they use. This results (strictly) in a reduction of overall water usage in Ireland, which results (strictly) in a reduction of the overall water provision costs in Ireland.

This means that by simply linking the user to the cost of their service, we reduce how much that we the people pay! (we would pay less when you consider us as a group when we have responsibility for our own usage than when we pay as a group that don't.)

errlloyd wrote: »

The reason why middle class people are cool with water chargers is becuase if you're a high earner paying for them this way effectively saves you money (assuming the extra revenue comes back to you in the shape of the usc cut everyone is so fond of suggesting).

What of those that can simply see that the previous system has left us with a Victorian water system that is in dire need of capital investment, no incentives to conserve/reduce wastage which results in an overall increase (strictly) in the cost to the state of the service, a 'public service' coming out of the exchequer's purse that therefore has wastage baked in (requiring higher taxes than might otherwise be elicited) to an already narrow tax-base?

Are they simply middle class people being cool with water charges or are they sensible analytical people who understand the problem that the State has and can see the viable solution?

Again, Ireland is a Republic, it offers a considerable social welfare safety net already to its people. The benefits of metered charging are plain and simple, and a far more pragmatic way of reducing our overall wastage (and therefore costs) is to connect the user with the cost. For those that genuinely cannot afford the change in the system which requires them to now bear that cost, we have a social welfare system that will indeed assist them.

The pragmatic solution for those people who genuinely cannot afford the change in system is campaigning for a Water Benefit to be added to Social Welfare, which could be flexed based upon number of dependants. Not removal of charges for all, but only a subsidy which in effect removes those charges for the genuine Can't Pay group. This gives us the benefits of what metered Water Charges brings, whilst also shielding the worst-off from some of the costs.