Irish water - Would you pay if...

JustTheOne

fliball123 wrote: »

How do we compare when all taxes both direct and indirect are taken into account and then compare the level of services we get for in return. Case in point we could only dream of a health care system in either the UK or Germany and yet per capita we pay more for our healthcare than both. Let the penny drop here the money for paying for water should have been gotten through savings in our spend. We pay more than enough in tax when both direct and indirect taxation are taken into account

There is more people waiting on trolleys in the UK.

Strikes, ambulances arriving 4 hours late, countless court cases.

The nhs isn't the great health service people like to make out over here.

The fact is there is 900,000 workers here paying little to no tax.

The middle earners are the ones keeping the country afloat and funding most services through taxation.

And it looks like that will be the case going forward as people won't help share the burden.

OU812

trishasaffron wrote: »

I'd pay if it was metered.....its a limited resource and needs conserving......don't see that as a poll option. Why?

Forgot to put it in (don't have a meter myself & it slipped my mind).

I also think the meter should be householder accessible with an app/site to submit readings and that billing should be monthly also.

FreudianSlippers

It's our civic duty to pay the government as much tax as possible.

Speedwell wrote: »

The cost of wastefulness and corruption shouldn't be a cost taxpayers are obliged to cover.

But let me guess: you want to pile more money into the HSE, you want to abolish Irish Water and let the Local Authorities manage water...

Speedwell

Speedwell wrote: »

The cost of wastefulness and corruption shouldn't be a cost taxpayers are obliged to cover.

Unfortunately it absolutely 100% should be.

You vote them in, you pay for their stuff.

That's how it must work.

It is the price we must bear for representative democracy.

fliball123

Suryavarman wrote: »

The Government is running a deficit so we clearly aren't paying enough tax to cover the cost of everything.

Sorry we do pay more than enough the problem is we are spending too much..

How can you justify 21billion in welfare
How can you justify Public servants getting crazy pension entitlements decades before the age of retirement.
How can you justify a huge pay gap between what our public servants get paid as apposed to the lower rate the private sector worker gets?
How can you justify 64 billion in bailing out banks + interest
How can you justify spending the 2nd most per capita on health care and see the absolute abysmal state that this is in.

These are just a few there are more such as quangos, ridiculous public sector allowance and I can go on and on.

So clearly you have no idea what your talking about. We pay more than enough in tax the problem is clearly on what the powers that be are spending it on.

fliball123

JustTheOne wrote: »

There is more people waiting on trolleys in the UK.

Strikes, ambulances arriving 4 hours late, countless court cases.

The nhs isn't the great health service people like to make out over here.

The fact is there is 900,000 workers here paying little to no tax.

The middle earners are the ones keeping the country afloat and funding most services through taxation.

And it looks like that will be the case going forward as people won't help share the burden.

At least your tax pays for you to wait on the brollies here the majority working have to pay for the luxury of sitting on a trolley. In fact if your lucky to get a trolley.

The NHS has our system beaten all hands down. Waiting times over there are way shorter then Ireland.

The majority of those 900k are those on the lower or part time wage. Do you want them to pay more? I have no bother with that?

Speedwell

Deleted User wrote: »

Unfortunately it absolutely 100% should be.

You vote them in, you pay for their stuff.

That's how it must work.

It is the price we must bear for representative democracy.

No, we are not obliged to pay for their mismanagement any more than an abused spouse is obliged to stay in the marriage.

Speedwell

Speedwell wrote: »

No, we are not obliged to pay for their mismanagement any more than an abused spouse is obliged to stay in the marriage.

We don't elect a government that runs until we die. Governments fall.

If the electorate disagrees enough with a Government there is a divorce option.

The analogy is pretty flawed.

fliball123

Deleted User wrote: »

We don't elect a government that runs until we die. Governments fall.

If the electorate disagrees enough with a Government there is a divorce option.

The analogy is pretty flawed.

The problem is that a government is voted in on promises and then once they get in their priority is feathering their own nest first and foremost, then its the local needs and then if they have time within the 4/5 odd years in government they may get to some promises. This is the fundamental problem with this backward country.

fliball123

fliball123 wrote: »

The problem is that a government is voted in on promises and then once they get in their priority is feathering their own nest first and foremost, then its the local needs and then if they have time within the 4/5 odd years in government they may get to some promises. This is the fundamental problem with this backward country.

I don't disagree with any of that, it doesn't argue against my point.

I disagree that an electorate can absolve itself of any of the Government's doings though. We chose them.

We can not like the decisions they made, we can hate them as people, but we chose them.

A cost of democracy is this shared ownership of it, the good and the bad. It's a burden that we must bear.

Speedwell

A proper understanding of government is that people are elected to fill certain positions that are tasked with doing certain things to maintain the public welfare. In other words we elect people because we think they will do a certain job for us. If they neglect their work, or they do it badly or wastefully, or if they commit crimes for which their employers (the voters) become liable, then they are not doing their job. To say "well, voters made their bed and now they have to lie in it" is like trying to go up to your boss and say, "Yeah, I didn't do the payroll for six months, and I crashed the company car while using my expense account to finance my daughter's wedding, and you can't fire me because you hired me and I'm now your responsibility to put up with, and you can't even complain because everything I do is really your fault for employing me". See how well that goes over.

Speedwell

Speedwell wrote: »

A proper understanding of government is that people are elected to fill certain positions that are tasked with doing certain things to maintain the public welfare. In other words we elect people because we think they will do a certain job for us. If they neglect their work, or they do it badly or wastefully, or if they commit crimes for which their employers (the voters) become liable, then they are not doing their job. To say "well, voters made their bed and now they have to lie in it" is like trying to go up to your boss and say, "Yeah, I didn't do the payroll for six months, and I crashed the company car while using my expense account to finance my daughter's wedding, and you can't fire me because you hired me and I'm now your responsibility to put up with". See how well that goes over.

How is that in anyway a reasonable analogy?

Here's a better one, I hire a guy to do a job for me, he's rubbish at it. I fire him. A week later a customer comes to me and says "that guy you sent round caused damage, I need €x".

You don't get to say "sorry, not my problem, he doesn't work here anymore."

Speedwell

Deleted User wrote: »

How is that in anyway a reasonable analogy?

Here's a better one, I hire a guy to do a job for me, he's rubbish at it. I fire him. A week later a customer comes to me and says "that guy you sent round caused damage, I need €x".

You don't get to say "sorry, not my problem, he doesn't work here anymore."

I have no idea what you mean. Neither does the taxpayer get to say, "Well, that politician who we booted out of office ripped off the country, but it's not our problem to fix".

The point of my analogy, which you ignored, is that politicians are elected to do a job, not to look pretty on TV while they do whatever the merry hell they please while we sit by crying.

Speedwell

Speedwell wrote: »

I have no idea what you mean. Neither does the taxpayer get to say, "Well, that politician who we booted out of office ripped off the country, but it's not our problem to fix".

The point of my analogy, which you ignored, is that politicians are elected to do a job, not to look pretty on TV while they do whatever the merry hell they please while we sit by crying.

Well considering that this

Speedwell wrote: »

The cost of wastefulness and corruption shouldn't be a cost taxpayers are obliged to cover.

was the first post I responded to in the thread you appear to have totally moved off that message and are discussing something else entirely with me now?

I pointed out that unfortunately they absolutely are costs that we must cover. They are unfortunately part of the cost of having a democracy.

Speedwell

Deleted User wrote: »

Well considering that this

was the first post I responded to in the thread you appear to have totally moved off that message and are discussing something else entirely with me now?

I pointed out that unfortunately they absolutely are costs that we must cover. They are unfortunately part of the cost of having a democracy.

Do you really not see the connection? If politicians are being wasteful and corrupt, instead of doing their jobs, that is not something taxpayers ought to be obliged to cover. We should not be obliged to do damage control because they enriched themselves at our expense. That is something that simply should not happen, just like crime is something that should not happen. You're blaming the victim.

eezipc

I pay already & a reduction of VAT would be welcome

Suryavarman wrote: »

Water isn't paid for through motor tax. Water is now paid for through water charges. Water might formerly have been paid for through motor tax but that is no longer the case. The Government was running a huge deficit, noticed that our former system of providing water was a shambles and decided to set up Irish Water and implement charges.

I think you'll find the Troika/ECB/EU decided there should be charges. Not the government. At least that's the continued spiel that the government likes to spew out all the time.

Speedwell

Speedwell wrote: »

Do you really not see the connection? If politicians are being wasteful and corrupt, instead of doing their jobs, that is not something taxpayers ought to be obliged to cover. We should not be obliged to do damage control because they enriched themselves at our expense. That is something that simply should not happen, just like crime is something that should not happen. You're blaming the victim.

Of course it is. We have the power at any stage to unseat a Government.

The Government works for the people. It is chosen by the people.

Just like the guy in the earlier analogy!

Deleted User wrote: »

Here's a better one, I hire a guy to do a job for me, he's rubbish at it. I fire him. A week later a customer comes to me and says "that guy you sent round caused damage, I need €x".

You don't get to say "sorry, not my problem, he doesn't work here anymore."

We don't get to step away from the Government's **** ups, we put them there, and didn't take them out before they did it!

Speedwell

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course it is. We have the power at any stage to unseat a Government.

The Government works for the people. It is chosen by the people.

Just like the guy in the earlier analogy!


We don't get to step away from the Government's **** ups, we put them there, and didn't take them out before they did it!

Going round and round with you. It is not so easy to remove bad politicians, as I know you're aware. Politicians are people we trust to do what they say they are going to do. Once elected, they have this thing called power. Power is something dangerous in the hands of the unscrupulous, because they can do what they please without impunity. If there really was a mechanism where we could hold politicians immediately and effectively liable for not keeping their promises, that would be fine and dandy. But as we can see from the recent elections, abusive politicians often get re-elected because there's no viable alternatives, or because their very power and influence protects them from being put down.

Meh, I don't have time to tell you what you already know.

Speedwell

Speedwell wrote: »

Going round and round with you. It is not so easy to remove bad politicians, as I know you're aware. Politicians are people we trust to do what they say they are going to do. Once elected, they have this thing called power. Power is something dangerous in the hands of the unscrupulous, because they can do what they please without impunity. If there really was a mechanism where we could hold politicians immediately and effectively liable for not keeping their promises, that would be fine and dandy. But as we can see from the recent elections, abusive politicians often get re-elected because there's no viable alternatives, or because their very power and influence protects them from being put down.

Meh, I don't have time to tell you what you already know.

The electorate chose them. They do not get elected without this step. The ballot is secret, voters cannot be coerced.

Simply ignoring this step might allow you to distance yourself from the Government's actions, but we can't ignore it!

If the electorate refuses to share the burden of the Government's decisions, then we do not have a democracy. An essential element is the burden sharing. We are all in it together.

Democracy is not perfect. There are costs that we must bear to have one, as it is the least worst system we can currently manage!

fliball123

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't disagree with any of that, it doesn't argue against my point.

I disagree that an electorate can absolve itself of any of the Government's doings though. We chose them.

We can not like the decisions they made, we can hate them as people, but we chose them.

A cost of democracy is this shared ownership of it, the good and the bad. It's a burden that we must bear.

But its not democracy its people telling the sheeple what they want to hear and then pigging out at the trough for their time in government and then when they do get booted out they have an outrageous pension to keep them going without having to work for the rest of their lives. You only have to look at about 40% the electorate not voting as they see no viable option and the good % (and I include myself in this) voting for the least worst option. Its not democracy if 40% think its not worth while voting for the current system. There needs to be fundamental change as in if a gov is put in on say a 5 point plan and after year one nothing has been progressed in this 5 point plan, they should be gone and forgoing any payments and pensions that they were entitled too. Will this happen..hell no turkeys do not vote for xmas

Elemonator

It's our civic duty to pay the government as much tax as possible.

I have no problem with the foundation of Irish Water, I've actually been around the water infrastructure and I'd say crumbling is putting it in good light. But it has overpaid people who get bonuses at the expense of taxpayer literally 8 years after this country collapsed.

I do support water charges too, and I don't care how controversial that is. There is a lot of wanton waste in this country, especially during the summer. Other taxes should come down too. There is a huge sense of entitlement here though, everyone wants everything but doesn't want to pay for it. Where is they money going to come from?

Per capita 2013, each person in this country paid 71 euro for water. Fact.

fliball123

Elemonator wrote: »

I have no problem with the foundation of Irish Water, I've actually been around the water infrastructure and I'd say crumbling is putting it in good light. But it has overpaid people who get bonuses at the expense of taxpayer literally 8 years after this country collapsed.

I do support water charges too, and I don't care how controversial that is. There is a lot of wanton waste in this country, especially during the summer. Other taxes should come down too. There is a huge sense of entitlement here though, everyone wants everything but doesn't want to pay for it. Where is they money going to come from?

Per capita 2013, each person in this country paid 71 euro for water. Fact.

Where are you getging 71 Euro for water. I pay a $h1t load more than than 71 Euro a fecking week pal. Water comes out of general taxation and the question you have to ask is what the hell is the average Joe getting for the tax they pay?

the_syco

Zebra3 wrote: »

FG are a right wing party who are committed to the EU's policy of privitisation.

Yet it was the Greens who votes this in....

=-=

If IW stops charging, next year another tax will be added to those that work. You tax everyone, you get riots, you only tax those that work, you don't get marches, because, well, they're working during the week... :pac:

Elemonator

It's our civic duty to pay the government as much tax as possible.

fliball123 wrote: »

Where are you getging 71 Euro for water. I pay a $h1t load more than than 71 Euro a fecking week pal. Water comes out of general taxation and the question you have to ask is what the hell is the average Joe getting for the tax they pay?

It is very clearly stated in "Government of Ireland, 2011, Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2012–2016: Medium Term Exchequer Framework".

I said you pay 71 euro per year for water. I didn't say you pay 71 euro in general taxation, "pal".

ressem

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry we do pay more than enough the problem is we are spending too much..

...
So clearly you have no idea what your talking about. We pay more than enough in tax the problem is clearly on what the powers that be are spending it on.

The alternative presented is reverting the water infrastructure to rot once again under a hodge-podge of disinterested local government.
According to the papers recently, local government fail to collect commercial rates from an estimated 1/2 of businesses, often as they don't send the invoice.
Piping approaching county borders is left as no-mans responsibility; just like the roads.
Under Irish water, the engineering contractors that they have working on bringing water treatment up to scratch appear to an outsider (me) to be hard working and getting the job done.
I live in a major town and I've been ill caused by cryptosporidium twice followed a week later by the boil notice. That's got to be doing damage to the old and young, those with weakened immune systems.

All of this political pandering with introductory rates and cash back grants is just uncertainty that their opponents can feed on.

fliball123

Elemonator wrote: »

It is very clearly stated in "Government of Ireland, 2011, Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2012–2016: Medium Term Exchequer Framework".

I said you pay 71 euro per year for water. I didn't say you pay 71 euro in general taxation, "pal".

yeah join the dots water is paid for out of general taxation and if the government decide to only spend that amount then they should cut other areas of spend and prioritize water.

The currenty paradym is like a renter paying 1,000 euros for rent and the landlord saying all the bills are included. The landlord then goes and spends the grand on stuff for himself and his down on his luck buddies and then gives some to his slick banker mates, then there is no money left to pay the utility bills such as electricityat the end of the month and he deicdes he is coming back to the tenant and asking for more rent. The vast majority of workers pay more than enough to cover water out of their income tax, those who dont are on the lower end of the scale on income. I have no problem with you asking for more off them but in and around the AIW and above it we pay more than enough in tax

fliball123

ressem wrote: »

The alternative presented is reverting the water infrastructure to rot once again under a hodge-podge of disinterested local government.
According to the papers recently, local government fail to collect commercial rates from an estimated 1/2 of businesses, often as they don't send the invoice.
Piping approaching county borders is left as no-mans responsibility; just like the roads.
Under Irish water, the engineering contractors that they have working on bringing water treatment up to scratch appear to an outsider (me) to be hard working and getting the job done.
I live in a major town and I've been ill caused by cryptosporidium twice followed a week later by the boil notice. That's got to be doing damage to the old and young, those with weakened immune systems.

All of this political pandering with introductory rates and cash back grants is just uncertainty that their opponents can feed on.

The alternative should be to cut back on other areas of spend that is wasteful I have put up about half a dozen areas where this government is wasteful. Then take this money and use it for water. You cannot ask a certain % of people to keep paying for everything. At some stage cuts need to be made. So while I agree that all of the above needs to be done you still have the problem that the vast majority of people here think we are taxed too much and the figures back that up when both direct and indirect tax is taken into account , also we get a shoddy return for our taxation as I pointed out just look at our health service.

fliball123

fliball123 wrote: »

yeah join the dots water is paid for out of general taxation and if the government decide to only spend that amount then they should cut other areas of spend and prioritize water.

Why?

Why not a solution which actually results in an overall decrease in net spend on water provision?

Funny number example;

Silly Scenario 1 wrote:

Government pays 3bn for Water provision through general taxation
& People also directly pay 0 bn

Silly Scenario 2 wrote:

Government pays 2.1bn for Water provision through LPT and other funds
& People also directly pay 600m

In that second scenario, the Government leverages the effect of giving people personal responsibility over their usage, which results in a net saving overall.

If it could be shown that the second scenario is likely to occur in the presence of metered charges, would you not prefer we saved 10% and had 300m more to spend elsewhere (on health, education, infrastructure etc)? Or could offer a tax cut without a reduction in services anywhere?

fliball123

Deleted User wrote: »

Why?

Why not a solution which actually results in an overall decrease in net spend on water provision?

Funny number example;




In that second scenario, the Government leverages the effect of giving people personal responsibility over their usage, which results in a net saving overall.

If it could be shown that the second scenario is likely to occur in the presence of metered charges, would you not prefer we saved 10% and had 300m more to spend elsewhere (on health, education, infrastructure etc)? Or could offer a tax cut without a reduction in services anywhere?

Like I say its not the implementation that I am arguing here about. It is the manner in which the money is gotten. The tax payer already pays too much. Start cutting

fliball123

fliball123 wrote: »

Like I say its not the implementation that I am arguing here about. It is the manner in which the money is gotten. The tax payer already pays too much. Start cutting

Wait what?

I've just pointed out that in the second scenario, the tax payer pays less!

The overall spend goes down.

fliball123

Deleted User wrote: »

Wait what?

I've just pointed out that in the second scenario, the tax payer pays less!

The overall spend goes down.

Emmet are you for taxation above what we already pay for water?

fliball123

fliball123 wrote: »

Emmet are you for taxation above what we already pay for water?

I'm pointing out very simply that a good water plan reduces the Overall Spend on Water.

That Overall Spend has in the past been borne through General Taxation.

Shifting some of that spend to individuals has the effect of reducing the overall spend.

Simple 'Tragedy of the Commons' economics.

fliball123

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm pointing out very simply that a good water plan reduces the Overall Spend on Water.

That Overall Spend has in the past been borne through General Taxation.

Shifting some of that spend to individuals has the effect of reducing the overall spend.

Simple 'Tragedy of the Commons' economics.

Sorry as I pointed out in my analogy what your looking for is the following

The currenty paradym is like a renter paying 1,000 euros for rent and the landlord saying all the bills are included. The landlord then goes and spends the grand on stuff for himself and his down on his luck buddies and then gives some to his slick banker mates, then there is no money left to pay the utility bills such as electricity at the end of the month and he decides he is coming back to the tenant and asking for more rent. The vast majority of workers pay more than enough to cover water out of their income tax, those who dont are on the lower end of the scale on income. I have no problem with you asking for more off them but in and around the AIW and above it we pay more than enough in tax

If water did not fall so frequently form the sky and was not as a renewable resource that we have I would see the point but the process of water going from unusable to usable should be through general taxation. Its not like the government is going out buying bottled water to put through our taps. It falls from the sky.

fliball123

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry as I pointed out in my analogy what your looking for is the following

The currenty paradym is like a renter paying 1,000 euros for rent and the landlord saying all the bills are included. The landlord then goes and spends the grand on stuff for himself and his down on his luck buddies and then gives some to his slick banker mates, then there is no money left to pay the utility bills such as electricity at the end of the month and he decides he is coming back to the tenant and asking for more rent. The vast majority of workers pay more than enough to cover water out of their income tax, those who dont are on the lower end of the scale on income. I have no problem with you asking for more off them but in and around the AIW and above it we pay more than enough in tax

If water did not fall so frequently form the sky and was not as a renewable resource that we have I would see the point but the process of water going from unusable to usable should be through general taxation. Its not like the government is going out buying bottled water to put through our taps. It falls from the sky.

A far better analogy is a group Commune where everyone pays some money into a bucket every week. At the end of every month, when the bills come in, any money that is still needed (the bucket is always short) is split between the group based on something.

The bills are on average €1000 per month

The commune decides that this bill amount seems quite high, and instead has everyone keep a track of what they use, and decide that people will contribute to the gap based on this figure.

They find that after 3 months, the bills are on average €880 per month.

The issue here is that they might not all have saved money equally, some might actually spend more under this system, but you can see that the money leaving the Commune each month is less, so the Commune is better off.

Irish Water set up as a national body, not company, not for profit with rates in-line with needs and where all revenue raised goes directly, set in law, to the maintenance and improvement of our water network delivery.
Irish Water where the remuneration for staff is not benchmarked against a non-existent private sector competitor and the realisation that board members do not need to have "business plans" to compete for business and market share.


One which rewards conservation as opposed to penalising regular usage, and avails of best tenders (independently verified and away from political favour)

That I would have no issue with.


On the levies on Motor Tax, VAT etc? They are gone, write them off, and can not be removed.
That's the problem with "specialised" taxes which are fed into general taxation, they go into the general pot and are used for everything BUT their initial function.
See Road Motor Tax

fliball123

Deleted User wrote: »

A far better analogy is a group Commune where everyone pays some money into a bucket every week. At the end of every month, when the bills come in, any money that is still needed (the bucket is always short) is split between the group based on something.

The bills are on average €1000 per month

The commune decides that this bill amount seems quite high, and instead has everyone keep a track of what they use, and decide that people will contribute to the gap based on this figure.

They find that after 3 months, the bills are on average €880 per month.

The issue here is that they might not all have saved money equally, some might actually spend more under this system, but you can see that the money leaving the Commune each month is less, so the Commune is better off.

Where in your analogy is there fairness for what people put into the bucket and what they take out. This is the issue of fairness the water charge is an extra tax that only those working will have to pay again. If the commune leader decided that he could save the extra by not giving massive amounts of money away to his banker friends to the right and his bearded brethren to the left and pocketing a fair wack into his own pocket. The 1000 Euro in your analogy would be easily found

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

A far better analogy is a group Commune where everyone pays some money into a bucket every week. At the end of every month, when the bills come in, any money that is still needed (the bucket is always short) is split between the group based on something.

The bills are on average €1000 per month

The commune decides that this bill amount seems quite high, and instead has everyone keep a track of what they use, and decide that people will contribute to the gap based on this figure.

They find that after 3 months, the bills are on average €880 per month.

The issue here is that they might not all have saved money equally, some might actually spend more under this system, but you can see that the money leaving the Commune each month is less, so the Commune is better off.

So true socialism? As opposed to the way IW was set up (to be privatised)

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

So true socialism? As opposed to the way IW was set up (to be privatised)

Sorry you've lost me. The analogy is very much not true socialism, given that the people who use more pay more.

fliball123

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry you've lost me. The analogy is very much not true socialism, given that the people who use more pay more.

Really so those on the dole will be paying it? I think not

fliball123

fliball123 wrote: »

Really so those on the dole will be paying it? I think not

Why do you think not?

Are people on the dole exempt from water charges?

fliball123

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do you think not?

Are people on the dole exempt from water charges?

I can tell you they will be you only have to join the dots if water charges are implemented all of a sudden the welfare class will plead poverty again and on top of a free gaff, free money, subsidized electy they will want their water for free or subsidized aswell and once again the tax payer will pick this up aswell.

johnnyskeleton

fliball123 wrote: »

The vast majority of workers pay more than enough to cover water out of their income tax, those who dont are on the lower end of the scale on income. I have no problem with you asking for more off them but in and around the AIW and above it we pay more than enough in tax

Actually income tax of c. €18bn per annum wouldn't even cover our social welfare expediture of c. €19bn per annum.

So your suggestion that our income tax would cover all the day to day spending of government bar the money for the bank bailouts is not correct.

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Actually income tax of c. €18bn per annum wouldn't even cover our social welfare expediture of c. €19bn per annum.

So your suggestion that our income tax would cover all the day to day spending of government bar the money for the bank bailouts is not correct.

I think that might be part of his point.

fliball123

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Actually income tax of c. €18bn per annum wouldn't even cover our social welfare expediture of c. €19bn per annum.

So your suggestion that our income tax would cover all the day to day spending of government bar the money for the bank bailouts is not correct.

I didnt say that what I said was we pay more than enough in tax when both direct and indirect is taken into play and I included the 21 billion (not 19billion) on welfare as a place where cuts should be start for paying for things such as fixing the water system.

FreudianSlippers

It's our civic duty to pay the government as much tax as possible.

fliball123 wrote: »

I didnt say that what I said was we pay more than enough in tax when both direct and indirect is taken into play and I included the 21 billion (not 19billion) on welfare as a place where cuts should be start for paying for things such as fixing the water system.

But like... obviously we don't or else we'd have a surplus without water charges.

fliball123

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

But like... obviously we don't or else we'd have a surplus without water charges.

Do the math on income tax alone we pay 10k per person working in this country and that takes in over 50% of these on either low income or working working part time and paying phuck all tax. This goes up to about 13k per year with VAT which everyone pays. What do we get for this phucking money?

the problem here is there is a significant amount of people where the tax burden weighs heavily. Everyone must pay VAT and other indirect charges. The other thing your clearly not addressing is the p1ss poor return I and others get for the taxes we pay. I pay more than enough for water to be included but instead of fairness you want me to pay it again and you want me to pay for the the people who cant afford it. The country is turning into a Stalin dreamland.

How dare you say we don't pay enough I have outlined over half a dozen areas of spend that this country partakes in that are rampant with over payment, fraud and freebies and yet the likes of you think we don't pay enough. Sorry we do and the figures are there for you to look at on how much we pay.

Its like asking an a tenant to pay more rent to a landlord after the landlord has run out and gets sky sports, a sports car and caviar and campaign for breakfast dinner and tea and then expects the tenant to pay more in rent to cover it.

The fact is the vast majority pay more than enough for water. Those who don't are in a group of people who cant afford it. If you want to get it off them good luck. But don't ask those who are paying for everything to pay for more as its not going to happen. The water charges is the straw and the taxpayer is the camel. The back is broken. So by just saying we are running a deficit as proof that we don't pay enough is crap come up with proof that we don't pay enough in tax when both direct and indirect is taken into account in this country. last I checked we were taking in 45 odd billion for the coffers that should be more than enough to run Ireland Inc. If the powers that be decide to bailout banks and give 21 billion to the loony lefties and then another 18 billion to the most corrupt and cushioned sector (the public sector) in history then what am I to do about it. There is no accountability in politics which is why 40% of people who could vote didn't bother.

FreudianSlippers

It's our civic duty to pay the government as much tax as possible.

fliball123 wrote: »

Do the math on income tax alone we pay 10k per person working in this country and that takes in over 50% of these on either low income or working working part time and paying phuck all tax. This goes up to about 13k per year with VAT which everyone pays. What do we get for this phucking money?

the problem here is there is a significant amount of people where the tax burden weighs heavily. Everyone must pay VAT and other indirect charges. The other thing your clearly not addressing is the p1ss poor return I and others get for the taxes we pay. I pay more than enough for water to be included but instead of fairness you want me to pay it again and you want me to pay for the the people who cant afford it. The country is turning into a Stalin dreamland.

How dare you say we don't pay enough I have outlined over half a dozen areas of spend that this country partakes in that are rampant with over payment, fraud and freebies and yet the likes of you think we don't pay enough. Sorry we do and the figures are there for you to look at on how much we pay.

Its like asking an a tenant to pay more rent to a landlord after the landlord has run out and gets sky sports, a sports car and caviar and campaign for breakfast dinner and tea and then expects the tenant to pay more in rent to cover it.

The fact is the vast majority pay more than enough for water. Those who don't are in a group of people who cant afford it. If you want to get it off them good luck. But don't ask those who are paying for everything to pay for more as its not going to happen. The water charges is the straw and the taxpayer is the camel. The back is broken. So by just saying we are running a deficit as proof that we don't pay enough is crap come up with proof that we don't pay enough in tax when both direct and indirect is taken into account in this country. last I checked we were taking in 45 odd billion for the coffers that should be more than enough to run Ireland Inc. If the powers that be decide to bailout banks and give 21 billion to the loony lefties and then another 18 billion to the most corrupt and cushioned sector (the public sector) in history then what am I to do about it. There is no accountability in politics which is why 40% of people who could vote didn't bother.

That's not really a coherent argument though is it? Even if it were, you should tell the CSO that you found an extra €7bn behind the couch cushions.

Whilst I may not agree with it, society has decided that we pay people to do no work, we subsidise homes to 14 year old single mothers... etc.

Until we decide to stop doing that or we find a boatload of oil somewhere, we're going to need to get money to pay for all this free stuff that everyone loves and feels entitled to; and unfortunately the poor schmucks paying for it are people like you and me paying 50%+ income tax and then VAT and then motor tax and then water charges... and the list goes on.

fliball123

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Actually income tax of c. €18bn per annum wouldn't even cover our social welfare expediture of c. €19bn per annum.

So your suggestion that our income tax would cover all the day to day spending of government bar the money for the bank bailouts is not correct.

and you think its a problem on the tax take side REALLY surely to phuck we pay way too much in welfare.

fliball123

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's not really a coherent argument though is it? Even if it were, you should tell the CSO that you found an extra €7bn behind the couch cushions.

Whilst I may not agree with it, society has decided that we pay people to do no work, we subsidise homes to 14 year old single mothers... etc.

Until we decide to stop doing that or we find a boatload of oil somewhere, we're going to need to get money to pay for all this free stuff that everyone loves and feels entitled to; and unfortunately the poor schmucks paying for it are people like you and me paying 50%+ income tax and then VAT and then motor tax and then water charges... and the list goes on.

No it is a valid argument we all run the same race and jump the same hurdles and because some get up off their holes and sacrifice time with their kids in order to provide not just money but some moral guidance they get absolutely raped with taxation, I was always told and by way of doing that work is the way to do things properly my mam and dad always worked. I worked part time from 13 and bar a month in my life always worked. Now my wife and I work and we have kids of our own and in order to set a proper example we put them into a creche in order to show them the right way to do it and do I get thanked no. I get to pay what is like a 2nd mortgage to the creche and then see the single mammies leaving their 5 kids from different dads there for free actually its not free my taxes pay for it.

So my argument is we need to start seeing some bang for our buck otherwise the country is phucked. Dole should not be competing with work in any way shape or form. Welfare should be given out in vouchers for food and clothes and for rent. Nothing more if someone wants the finer things in life they should have to work for it. So my premise is with all the taxes my wife and I pay and with the p1ss poor service i receive for this tax my water has to be covered. If it is not then I want a serious tax cut in income tax back in my pocket and I will pay for water but I am not paying for it twice

the dark phantom

I pay already & a reduction of VAT would be welcome

Paying them jack, Still didn't even get as much as a Welcome Pack yet.