We already pay for water

Phat Dick

That was the most annoying sentence from anti water charges people

bellylint

super, well done, you have an opinion and no better place for it than on the internet. Provide some rational and you might get a discussion or did you just want to vent... this is AH after all

branie2

Back it up

ShadyAcres

Phat Dick wrote: »

That was the most annoying sentence from anti water charges people

And?

Pacifico

No it's was...my car tax pays for my water

branie2

branie2 wrote: »

Back it up

Id rather say "Let it go"

donegaLroad

Phat Dick wrote: »

That was the most annoying sentence from anti water charges people

'If petrol was coming out of the taps, we wouldn't be buying it in bottles...'

no wait, that was a comment about the launch of Ballygowan water.

Your Face

I don't get it.
Why would someone willingly agree to give away their money without a fight?
Its so weak willed.

Atlantic Dawn

Well who paid for it pre the charges, Willy Wonka?

Fighting Tao

Phat Dick wrote: »

That was the most annoying sentence from anti water charges people

Hi Phil Hogan.

baylah17

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Well who paid for it pre the charges, Willy Wonka?

The billions we borrowed each year I suppose

Hitman3000

baylah17 wrote:

The billions we borrowed each year I suppose

Nah it doesn't cost billions to supply water.

Edward M

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Nah it doesn't cost billions to supply water.

It does.

Tom Mann Centuria

Not a great thread, but I'm worried about chore sex guy, he's late.


Edit: oh no, I missed him didn't I? Heartbroken.

Jawgap

"Are you on your oath, Guard" was another gem.

Along with, on one occasion, "Hands up, don't shoot" (around the time of Ferguson) while they were walking towards four Guards lounging against a squad car.

Jawgap

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Not a great thread, but I'm worried about chore sex guy, he's late.


Edit: oh no, I missed him didn't I? Heartbroken.

Ah no......missed him too. Bloody mods seem to be getting quicker off the mark

Hitman3000

Edward M wrote:

It does.

It doesn't, when FG were pushing charges the figure put out was just over a billion to supply water needs. An article in the Times from 2014. Most up to date I could find although I remember Coveney suggesting a figure of 1.5/1.6 billion. So still not billions.

Fanny Wank

Bunch of net benefactors of the state shouting "I already pay for water"

The irony was not lost on me

I also learned that one can do anything as long as they say "peaceful protest" first

railer201

Update - We pay for water.

Zebra3

The main reason Irish Water was set up was to accommodate the future privatisisation of our water supply.

Yet this seems to have gone over so many people’s heads.

spindex

Zebra3 wrote: »

The main reason Irish Water was set up was to accommodate the future privatisisation of our water supply.

Yet this seems to have gone over so many people’s heads.

True story

Sky King

I just make my own with tanks of hydrogen and oxygen.

railer201

Sky King wrote: »

I just make my own with tanks of hydrogen and oxygen.

Bright spark. ???

arayess

Phat Dick wrote: »

That was the most annoying sentence from anti water charges people

sorry about that but given I pay 50% plus of my income - and fcuking employers PRSI too boot for my staff - I'm a little annoyed on the matter.
That much tax should cover basic services.

Yet the public services I receive are similar to a low tax economy.
I get f all health benefits - pay a fortune on health insurance and as a company owner I have no dole entitlement.

The governments role is to balance the books...they don't.
They have largesse and less important things they spunk my cash on.
Change that and then lets talk

We all know why this is ...we are paying the bank debt but the government and tbh few of the opposition will ever come out and say
"lads , you need to pay for more stuff despite the high taxes because of the bank debt...sorry" . treat people with some respect.
It all boils down to bank debt imo...

Fanny **** wrote: »

Bunch of net benefactors of the state shouting "I already pay for water"

The irony was not lost on me

I also learned that one can do anything as long as they say "peaceful protest" first

I earn and pay tax....I was there at several marches ,.what's your point again? Although I never said "peaceful protest".

Phat Dick

Phat Dick wrote: »

That was the most annoying sentence from anti water charges people

Shame, shame, shame on you. Peaceful protest. Midget parasite.

Wheeliebin30

We're on hunger strike.

An hour later munching on cirrus chips.

branie2

Deleted User wrote: »

Shame, shame, shame on you. Peaceful protest. Midget parasite.

Heavy handed

S. Goodspeed

Hitman3000 wrote: »

It doesn't, when FG were pushing charges the figure put out was just over a billion to supply water needs. An article in the Times from 2014. Most up to date I could find although I remember Coveney suggesting a figure of 1.5/1.6 billion. So still not billions.

That’s assuming we only want water for one year I guess...?

Guy:Incognito

S. Goodspeed wrote: »

That’s assuming we only want water for one year I guess...?

And none of the infrastructure needs reparing/upgrading and no new buildings are built that need a supply.

Avatar MIA

arayess wrote: »

sorry about that but given I pay 50% plus of my income - and fcuking employers PRSI too boot for my staff - I'm a little annoyed on the matter.

You'd have to be earning approx €660,000 per year to be paying more than 50% of your income on tax. So, well done you. But, do you really have to complain about another few hundred euro?


I suspect you mean you pay a marginal tax rate of over 50%. It sucks, I know. But you and I are the very ones that should be in favour of a water charge. Because, and as you pay the higher marginal rate you've obviously got some intelligence, you know there's a relatively fixed cost to running the state including supply of water. And if there's not a universal charge then it's going to fall on those paying income tax.

So, that's either you and I paying more Income Tax or not receiving a greater tax reduction.

So, what do we want UNIVERSAL WATER CHARGES!, when do we want them, ACTUALLY LAST YEAR WAS QUITE A GOOD TIME, THANK YOU.

suicide_circus

Your Face wrote: »

I don't get it.
Why would someone willingly agree to give away their money without a fight?
Its so weak willed.

Because they understand the concept of investing in infrastructure,promoting conservation and civic responsibility?

McMurphy

Phat Dick wrote: »

That was the most annoying sentence from anti water charges people

I didn't know the Tanaiste was anti water charges

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3TyfERp-Iw

Edward M

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I didn't know the Tanaiste was anti water charges

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3TyfERp-Iw

He isn't, but good gif there, taken out of context of course from his full statement.
Its a fret that some more could go to homelessness, health etc if people were prepared to pay, perhaps €200 per household or so towards the cost of water provision.

Fake News

It was just another fad tax introduced to compensate for irresponsible government spending, like the plastic bag levy. When it first came out, it was something like 5c a bag. We were told the money would go towards protecting the environment which was understandable. Now it's 70cent a bag, which is inexcusable. I always get the same response each time I go into the supermarket. I have the groceries thrown at me. I have to ask for a plastic bag to put my groceries into and I get the same response every time ''We only have the 70cent ones, is that ok?'' The shop assistant knowing all too well that's an extortionate price for a plastic bag. If it was ok, they wouldn't have to ask. I can imagine this was the direction water charges were heading in time. The government, through irresponsible spending, would screw it up again somehow, and bring a new tax, like internet tax or something stupid like that and the cycle would repeat itself all over again.

McMurphy

Edward M wrote: »

He isn't, but good gif there, taken out of context of course from his full statement.
Its a fret that some more could go to homelessness, health etc if people were prepared to pay, perhaps €200 per household or so towards the cost of water provision.

How was it taken out of context, and how or who do you suppose was paying for water services before Irish Water was brain farted upon us, and who do you suppose was paying for it, when it was trundling along work out the funds it needed being collected?

Lastly, remind me what FGs "Expert Committee" said ~ about how our water services was best paid for?

No point wanting a diagnosis of they're not prepared to take the prescribed medicine.

pointelle

I can remember as a kid all the charges (rates? was that what they were called?) were dissolved to be absorbed by the increase in income tax , I always wondered why no one seemed to bring it up, I very much doubt that I would've beeen daydreaming about tax matters I had a lot of hula hooping to do

Avatar MIA

Fake News wrote: »

It was just another fad tax introduced to compensate for irresponsible government spending, like the plastic bag levy. When it first came out, it was something like 5c a bag. We were told the money would go towards protecting the environment which was understandable. Now it's 70cent a bag, which is inexcusable. I always get the same response each time I go into the supermarket. I have the groceries thrown at me. I have to ask for a plastic bag to put my groceries into and I get the same response every time ''We only have the 70cent ones, is that ok?'' The shop assistant knowing all too well that's an extortionate price for a plastic bag. If it was ok, they wouldn't have to ask. I can imagine this was the direction water charges were heading in time. The government, through irresponsible spending, would screw it up again somehow, and bring a new tax, like internet tax or something stupid like that and the cycle would repeat itself all over again.

The plastic bag tax has been a huge success.

If you're too stupid to bring a reusable bag you should pay €5 per platic bag.

Roger Hassenforder

Fake News wrote: »

It was just another fad tax introduced to compensate for irresponsible government spending, like the plastic bag levy. When it first came out, it was something like 5c a bag. We were told the money would go towards protecting the environment which was understandable. Now it's 70cent a bag, which is inexcusable. I always get the same response each time I go into the supermarket. I have the groceries thrown at me. I have to ask for a plastic bag to put my groceries into and I get the same response every time ''We only have the 70cent ones, is that ok?'' The shop assistant knowing all too well that's an extortionate price for a plastic bag. If it was ok, they wouldn't have to ask.

well if people are too stupid/lazy to either carry a plastic bag around in their car/jacket/handbag, we should probably charge a Euro until they get the message. Would a tenner entice you to carry a squashed up bag stuffed into your coat? How much are you willing to pay until you get the message?

along with the smoking ban, the plastic bag levy is one of the best things the government has done. the coutry side was full of plastic bags stuck on trees and ditches.

Fake News

Fake News wrote: »

It was just another fad tax introduced to compensate for irresponsible government spending, like the plastic bag levy. When it first came out, it was something like 5c a bag. We were told the money would go towards protecting the environment which was understandable. Now it's 70cent a bag, which is inexcusable. I always get the same response each time I go into the supermarket. I have the groceries thrown at me. I have to ask for a plastic bag to put my groceries into and I get the same response every time ''We only have the 70cent ones, is that ok?'' The shop assistant knowing all too well that's an extortionate price for a plastic bag. If it was ok, they wouldn't have to ask. I can imagine this was the direction water charges were heading in time. The government, through irresponsible spending, would screw it up again somehow, and bring a new tax, like internet tax or something stupid like that and the cycle would repeat itself all over again.

Do your purse and the environment a favor and reuse the reusable bags.

Alf Veedersane

Fake News wrote: »

It was just another fad tax introduced to compensate for irresponsible government spending, like the plastic bag levy. When it first came out, it was something like 5c a bag. We were told the money would go towards protecting the environment which was understandable. Now it's 70cent a bag, which is inexcusable. I always get the same response each time I go into the supermarket. I have the groceries thrown at me. I have to ask for a plastic bag to put my groceries into and I get the same response every time ''We only have the 70cent ones, is that ok?'' The shop assistant knowing all too well that's an extortionate price for a plastic bag. If it was ok, they wouldn't have to ask. I can imagine this was the direction water charges were heading in time. The government, through irresponsible spending, would screw it up again somehow, and bring a new tax, like internet tax or something stupid like that and the cycle would repeat itself all over again.

The plastic bag levy was never 5c. It was 15c when it came in and bags were free. Now you pay for a bag that you can use over and over.

It was a massive success as it has reduced the generation of plastic bag waste by over 90%.

But yeah, it was just a fad tax with no actual benefit whatsoever.

Edward M

Rick Shaw wrote: »

How was it taken out of context, and how or who do you suppose was paying for water services before Irish Water was brain farted upon us, and who do you suppose was paying for it, when it was trundling along work out the funds it needed being collected?

Lastly, remind me what FGs "Expert Committee" said ~ about how our water services was best paid for?

No point wanting a diagnosis of they're not prepared to take the prescribed medicine.

Ah I know, I'm not getting into an IW debate.
An expert commission and a whole dose of politicos telling us the best way to fund it, a govt that made a hames of introducing it.
But I think paying for it as a stand alone service would've the best, if done properly.
We have to try to provide housing and health services and virtually every other service from general taxation, I honestly don't know how any govt could do it with the pot available to do it all in Ireland.
But on here, everywhere else you look and people you talk to want everything provided from the pot, but fcuk all of them know how it can be done, including myself.
Cue waste and cronyism replies, but that has fcuk all to do with it realistically.

Ash.J.Williams

suicide_circus wrote: »

Because they understand the concept of investing in infrastructure,promoting conservation and civic responsibility?

In a perfect world you would be correct. However this was a clusterf** of catastrophes that could have been handled much better

Idbatterim

First of all I agree with water charges. Secondly I think these posts miss the point though. If you are a pensioner, on welfare or one of the long term wasters. You are getting far more out of the system that you have ever paid in. If you are low paid, like up to 20,000k you are paying virtually nothing into the system in terms of direct taxes. You could have several hundred pages debating backwards and forwards. The only people being done and with any sort of complaint are the middle and in particular high income earners who are getting absolutely done, so that the rest get off very lightly...

there is no way there is any other country, where the welfare rates are that high or where huge number of workers on lowish incomes pay in virtually nothing in direct taxes. I have seen figures before a while ago on this subject and surprise surprise ireland was way out line with out peers...

Idbatterim

Fake News wrote: »

It was just another fad tax introduced to compensate for irresponsible government spending, like the plastic bag levy. When it first came out, it was something like 5c a bag. We were told the money would go towards protecting the environment which was understandable. Now it's 70cent a bag, which is inexcusable. I always get the same response each time I go into the supermarket. I have the groceries thrown at me. I have to ask for a plastic bag to put my groceries into and I get the same response every time ''We only have the 70cent ones, is that ok?'' The shop assistant knowing all too well that's an extortionate price for a plastic bag. If it was ok, they wouldn't have to ask. I can imagine this was the direction water charges were heading in time. The government, through irresponsible spending, would screw it up again somehow, and bring a new tax, like internet tax or something stupid like that and the cycle would repeat itself all over again.

the plastic bag tax was great. I agree about the annoying 70c bag, but all that does is ensure even more, that I bring my own bags. win / win. In terms of water, politically, there is no way they would have ever allowed charging to be more than a token gesture levels. Sure look at the pathetically low rates of motor tax on cars now, they wont even touch that & people think they were going to let water go to outrageous levels? LOL

Idbatterim

Fanny **** wrote: »

Bunch of net benefactors of the state shouting "I already pay for water"

The irony was not lost on me

I also learned that one can do anything as long as they say "peaceful protest" first

just read the first few posts and coming back to this now. Nail on the head, most citizens are contributing f*ck all in terms of the cost to running the state per citizen...

lets look at our taxes. none on water, virtually non on property. High tax on cigarettes on alcohol, which are luxuries, so fair enough. the only tax that people get hammered on here is the marginal rate which kicks in from a low enough income.

anyone group here complaining other than those on mid to high incomes, has some gall in my opinion! free nearly fu**cking everything, unless you work in this country!

Free gp visits, while others paying into the system pay E55-65 a visit. (I am assuming asking those with a medical card to pay a pathetic E15-20 per gp visit would be outrageous) :rolleyes: free travel for many, who dont work ironically. free tv license, not sure if some still getting free passports. barely paying anything with the prescription charge cap.

the hard done by here should really sit down with those from deepest darkest africa and compare their horror stories :rolleyes:

Idbatterim

arayess wrote: »

sorry about that but given I pay 50% plus of my income - and fcuking employers PRSI too boot for my staff - I'm a little annoyed on the matter.
That much tax should cover basic services.

Yet the public services I receive are similar to a low tax economy.
I get f all health benefits - pay a fortune on health insurance and as a company owner I have no dole entitlement.

The governments role is to balance the books...they don't.
They have largesse and less important things they spunk my cash on.
Change that and then lets talk

We all know why this is ...we are paying the bank debt but the government and tbh few of the opposition will ever come out and say
"lads , you need to pay for more stuff despite the high taxes because of the bank debt...sorry" . treat people with some respect.
It all boils down to bank debt imo...



I earn and pay tax....I was there at several marches ,.what's your point again? Although I never said "peaceful protest".

right, so you are exactly the same as myself then in terms of employment situation etc. Now when you were at these marches, 95% plus probably were the massive state beneficiaries who want to pay for nothing, they are the reason your tax gets you virtually nothing here. Thats why I agreed with the charges, it would allow further cuts to income tax for those paying and let those contributing virtually nothing into the system take a hit for a change...

bank debt, that saga is done! I believe nama actually made a profit. I keep on hearing this "bank debt" deflection. Welfare costs us more in two years than the one off bank debt, before actions were taken to stable the ship and actually a make the best of a bad scenario. Admittedly I am sure a few hangers on were enriched along the way, but no system is perfect, thats humans for you...

The governments role is to balance the books...they don't.
They have largesse and less important things they spunk my cash on.
Change that and then lets talk

their role isnt to balance the books, they dont actually have to, you can continue running small deficits and due to inflation, keep rolling the debt, what happened here with the crash forced our hand, when others wouldnt lend to us at reasonable rates.

yes they do have largesse, to buy elections every few years when there is stable government, when there isnt at the moment, they give away everything they can get away with every budget. And instead of adequately rewarding you or I, the self employed or workers who deserve relief. they throw it at the pensioners, welfare, the biggest moaners. It wont change, dont delude yourself!

People on welfare in the budget before last received a larger increase per week i.e E5, than someone earning 34k received in the usc reduction!

CatFromHue

I can't help but feel that the IW fiasco is our Brexit or Trump.

Everyone outside of Ireland are scratching their heads at how we provide for our services and why the link between us going broke and the need for more stable income was ignored.

It wasn't all the banks fault we needed a bailout, we were running huge budget deficits with no money going to the banks.

Idbatterim

CatFromHue wrote: »

I can't help but feel that the IW fiasco is our Brexit or Trump.

Everyone outside of Ireland are scratching their heads at how we provide for our services and why the link between us going broke and the need for more stable income was ignored.

It wasn't all the banks fault we needed a bailout, we were running huge budget deficits with no money going to the banks.

remember we had the "give europe the fingers" threat on the bank debt. When you are the one who is absolutely desperate for the money, like Ireland was, that is some bluff to take. Had that been done, LOL if they pulled the funding over night and we had to live within our means, i.e on what the state generates. It would have been a once in a generation opportunity to fix the wrongs of decades of vote buying. They can come back and talk to me about "hardship" if the welfare rates were halved or more, which they would have had to have been. the marginal rate is already at such ridiculous levels, that raising it, would have been very problematic. Point of diminishing returns etc

horseburger

Zebra3 wrote: »

The main reason Irish Water was set up was to accommodate the future privatisisation of our water supply.

Yet this seems to have gone over so many people’s heads.

Indeed, and here is Simon Coveney, advocating privatization of state owned assets, talking about "selling companies that we don't need, and assets that we don't need", "selling companies, or parts of companies that we don't need".

here is Simon Coveney conceding that water is already being paid for

here's another video of Simon Coveney being challenged on the water issue and privatisation

Hitman3000

Idbatterim wrote:

the hard done by here should really sit down with those from deepest darkest africa and compare their horror stories

Of absolutely no relevance to someone living in a western developed nation.

Wanderer78

horseburger wrote:

Indeed, and here is Simon Coveney talking about "selling companies that we don't need, and assets that we don't need", "selling companies that we don't need, and parts of companies that we don't need".

But, but 'trickle down'!