Water ownership...It hasn't gone away you know.

atticu

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

How can anything taxpayer funded be free

.

If the tax payers fund something, then it is free to those who don’t pay tax.

I understand that that is the type of society that you want, but we don’t all want it.

Which leads me to assume that either you think that everyone pays tax, or you want those who pay tax to believe that everyone pays tax so that you can get the society that you want.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're confusing paying taxes with the IW con/swindle I didn't partake in, no.

I'm sure you don't partake in the "con/swindle" of paying for your electricity either.

Do you honestly not know how water is/was financed?

The problem is that a lot of us do and you don't (as you'll see in a second)

Any way, as I said there's no water charges. They are gone. No victors in it, (except Denis O'Brien, laughing yoga instructors, consultants and 'our own') as usual the tax payer is the loser.

Are you paying water charges, are IW taking your money?

Yes, we are paying water charges; yes, IW are taking my money.

Water charges are still there - the State is paying IW the charges up to the new excessive use limit out of our tax money.

FreudianSlippers

Edward M wrote: »

Some action today with regards to changing staff from local authorities.
Unions and the staff concerned are unlikely to move or agree without at least a promise and a date for a referendum.



https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/1206/1015530-irish-water/

As above, this proposed amendment is nothing more than a swindle by the unions to protect the bloated administrative aspect of provision of water services.

professore

emo72 wrote: »

If we could trust politicians it wouldn't need to be put in the Constitution. But we don't. So it does.

The Repeal crowd trusted the politicians on abortion. Now look at the mess its turning into.

Seth Brundle

atticu wrote: »

If the tax payers fund something, then it is free to those who don’t pay tax.

I understand that that is the type of society that you want, but we don’t all want it.

Which leads me to assume that either you think that everyone pays tax, or you want those who pay tax to believe that everyone pays tax so that you can get the society that you want.

Expect to receive a response about VAT as if this makes it all ok

McMurphy

atticu wrote: »

If the tax payers fund something, then it is free to those who don’t pay tax.

I understand that that is the type of society that you want, but we don’t all want it.

Which leads me to assume that either you think that everyone pays tax, or you want those who pay tax to believe that everyone pays tax so that you can get the society that you want.

I am a self employed professional, I pay tax, quite a lot of it, might I add.

But let's move on to this notion that because the govts E.C concluded that paying for water via the taxation pot - is therefore somehow "free" is absurd.

Just the same as I do not look at my kids education, the local park and library running and maintenance is free either, it's paid for from taxation, that I contribute heavily too, likewise does my wife.

I must ask my accountant about some mechanism (so far unbeknownst to me) that would enable me to pay zero tax, some members of our society seem to be going around being able to escape tax according to you. This includes vat and various other levies I assume (all of which contribute to various state services)

However, if I'm guessing right here, what you're actually putting forward is a thinly veiled swipe at those on SW, or other fixed incomes, and are (wrongfully) under the impression that they somehow do not pay tax - they do. Income tax is not the only form of taxation in the state.

However, moving on. Let us go to a hypothetical scenario where direct metered charges were to resume.

These people you seem to believe are enjoying "free but paid for by tax payers" water.

They now have to pay.

Where will the money come from that they will be paying with?

Go on take a guess.

oscarBravo

professore wrote: »

The Repeal crowd trusted the politicians on abortion. Now look at the mess its turning into.

Yeah, things were sooo much simpler when horrific legal messes were hard-coded in the Constitution and had to be sorted out through Supreme Court cases involving pregnant teenagers.

atticu

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I am a self employed professional, I pay tax, quite a lot of it, might I add.

But let's move on to this notion that because the govts E.C concluded that paying for water via the taxation pot - is therefore somehow "free" is absurd.

Just the same as I do not look at my kids education, the local park and library running and maintenance is free either, it's paid for from taxation, that I contribute heavily too, likewise does my wife.

I must ask my accountant about some mechanism (so far unbeknownst to me) that would enable me to pay zero tax, some members of our society seem to be going around being able to escape tax according to you. This includes vat and various other levies I assume (all of which contribute to various state services)

However, if I'm guessing right here, what you're actually putting forward is a thinly veiled swipe at those on SW, or other fixed incomes, and are (wrongfully) under the impression that they somehow do not pay tax - they do. Income tax is not the only form of taxation in the state.

However, moving on. Let us go to a hypothetical scenario where direct metered charges were to resume.

These people you seem to believe are enjoying "free but paid for by tax payers" water.

They now have to pay.

Where will the money come from that they will be paying with?

Go on take a guess.

If you and I go for a coffee and I pay, then I have paid the VAT, but if I hand you the cash and you pay, then you have paid the VAT.

Not logical or factual, but you expect me to believe it.

I don’t.

atticu

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I am a self employed.

I believe this.

blanch152

pearcider wrote: »

What a strange poster you are. It’s like you’re almost throwing out threats now. You’re literally paraphrasing the Provisional IRA! You are grotesque. People like you are the type that will lead us into a totalitarian state.

What a nonsensical response.

You don't challenge a single thing in my post, just throw insults.

The fact is that water charges were never abolished by the Dail. All that happened was that the threshold for free water was raised so that only a minority will pay for water.

All I am saying is that if the Dail can raise a threshold with a small amendment, there is nothing stopping them from lowering it overnight at some future date.

How that is paraphrasing the IRA is baffling. How you see fundamental facts of Dail operations as threat is bewildering. And finally, how you see an explanation of the democratic workings of the Dail as being the way to a totalitarian state is absolutely bizarre.

atticu

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I pay tax, quite a lot of it, might I add.

This, not so much.

GSRNBP

blanch152 wrote: »

What a nonsensical response.

You don't challenge a single thing in my post, just throw insults.

The fact is that water charges were never abolished by the Dail. All that happened was that the threshold for free water was raised so that only a minority will pay for water.

All I am saying is that if the Dail can raise a threshold with a small amendment, there is nothing stopping them from lowering it overnight at some future date.

How that is paraphrasing the IRA is baffling. How you see fundamental facts of Dail operations as threat is bewildering. And finally, how you see an explanation of the democratic workings of the Dail as being the way to a totalitarian state is absolutely bizarre.

You're correct in terms of the legislation in place, as is another poster in terms of how we are paying tax money through Revenue to Irish Water for charges, but I think the current Government is very unlikely to actually impose the charges to the public in the near future.

Quin_Dub

atticu wrote: »

I believe this.

atticu wrote: »

This, not so much.

**Mod Note**

Up the Standard please.

blanch152

GSRNBP wrote: »

You're correct in terms of the legislation in place, as is another poster in terms of how we are paying tax money through Revenue to Irish Water for charges, but I think the current Government is very unlikely to actually impose the charges to the public in the near future.

I never said that the current Government would impose the charges, but I have no doubt that the lowering of the threshold, and the subsequent saving on the subsidy to Irish Water will be one of the revenue-raising measures considered in the next downturn.

McMurphy

atticu wrote: »

If you and I go for a coffee and I pay, then I have paid the VAT, but if I hand you the cash and you pay, then you have paid the VAT.

Not logical or factual, but you expect me to believe it.

I don’t.

I don't follow here

I'll ask again.

Where's the money going to come from by people on (for example) SW to pay the hypothetical water charges?

My guess is..... from tax payers money, which by the way will bring us straight back to square one, except perhaps maybe a sw increase or a subsidy may be introduced to help fund their charges, which will also come from taxpayers, so doubly back to square one only with an added layer of expense.

But hey, if you think the E.C got it wrong with their finding about the best way to fund our water services, take it up with them.

James Brown

atticu wrote: »

Earlier you said that you would happily pay more tax for people to get free food.

Now you are complaining that the tax payer is the loser.

Which do you want?

If the tax payers fund free stuff for everyone, the taxpayers will always be the losers.

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. You are comparing funding a quango to paying taxes. I'm happy to see taxes going towards something worth while.
Back to IW, not worth while. A waste of money.
So if the tax payer is paying for water, how is a tax payer getting the fruits of someones elses labour? Your nonsense has you in knots.

Who's 'everyone'? Do you think there's split personalities at work? We all pay tax yet 'everyone' is getting their 'free' water paid for by the tax payer?

You are either confused or trying to create an argument out of nothing.

James Brown

atticu wrote: »

If the tax payers fund something, then it is free to those who don’t pay tax.

I understand that that is the type of society that you want, but we don’t all want it.

Which leads me to assume that either you think that everyone pays tax, or you want those who pay tax to believe that everyone pays tax so that you can get the society that you want.

Who's we? The Irish public do not want water charges but happily pay taxes towards it's supply.

Are we seeing behind the curtain now? You want to rant about the poor? Get on a scrounger/dole/lifer kick? *Yawn* You'll be bringing tourists into it next.
Tax pays for water, we all pay tax, unless in that minority who don't because they are poor or resident abroad for tax purposes. You're beyond scraping the barrel at this point.
What has this off road excursion got to do with privatisation?

atticu

Matt Barrett wrote: »

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. You are comparing funding a quango to paying taxes. I'm happy to see taxes going towards something worth while.
Back to IW, not worth while. A waste of money.
So if the tax payer is paying for water, how is a tax payer getting the fruits of someones elses labour? Your nonsense has you in knots.

Who's 'everyone'? Do you think there's split personalities at work? We all pay tax yet 'everyone' is getting their 'free' water paid for by the tax payer?

You are either confused or trying to create an argument out of nothing.

Why do you keep contradicting yourself.

Do you want to pay for water or not?

atticu

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Who's we? The Irish public do not want water charges but happily pay taxes towards it's supply.

Again with the contradiction.

Are you happy to pay for water or not?

James Brown

atticu wrote: »

Again with the contradiction.

Are you happy to pay for water or not?

Do you consider the water charges of old a tax? Is that were we're losing you?
You suggested we were not willing to pay for water.
We do pay, we pay taxes.
Then you inferred you were talking about the people who don't pay taxes yet avail of water provided by the tax payer.
You are going in circles.
I do and am happy to pay for water, including any naked hungry people looking for food and clothing and not happy or willing to pay a trumped up quango charge, which isn't relevant any way.
The only one possibly feigning confusion here is yourself.

It's a long road to travel, but I suppose when 'difficult to word' is the best folk can come up with...

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Who's we? The Irish public do not want water charges but happily pay taxes towards it's supply.

Are we seeing behind the curtain now? You want to rant about the poor? Get on a scrounger/dole/lifer kick? *Yawn* You'll be bringing tourists into it next.
Tax pays for water, we all pay tax, unless in that minority who don't because they are poor or resident abroad for tax purposes. You're beyond scraping the barrel at this point.
What has this off road excursion got to do with privatisation?

Eh, as has been pointed out, water charges have not been abolished. The threshold for payment has been raised, that is all.

piplip87

Water Charges of 3 quid a week per household would go a long way to fixing the infrastructure. Then the money saved from government expenditure can go towards building houses.... It's quite simple really yet those who led the protests on water are the same ones leading protests on housing.

I would also like to know where all the Jobs to ensure not guilty money went if they all got legal aid ?

James Brown

piplip87 wrote: »

Water Charges of 3 quid a week per household would go a long way to fixing the infrastructure. Then the money saved from government expenditure can go towards building houses.... It's quite simple really yet those who led the protests on water are the same ones leading protests on housing.

I would also like to know where all the Jobs to ensure not guilty money went if they all got legal aid ?

A few things here.
How the state mismanages our taxes taken in is on the state not people who see a con and won't wear it, (IW/metering).
Tax monies go toward encouraging the private sector to make itself more profits and rental aid to help their customers afford the high rents. What make you think the FF/FG government would start putting money into affordable housing or social housing, more than they are?
When people are falsely accused by Garda and vilified by politicians, they should have all fees covered by the state. That's on the Garda and politicians likening them to ISIS, IMO.
What's any of this to do with securing publicly owned water supply/infrastructure from privatisation?

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

A few things here.
How the state mismanages our taxes taken in is on the state not people who see a con and won't wear it, (IW/metering).
Tax monies go toward encouraging the private sector to make itself more profits and rental aid to help their customers afford the high rents. What make you think the FF/FG government would start putting money into affordable housing or social housing, more than they are?
When people are falsely accused by Garda and vilified by politicians, they should have all fees covered by the state. That's on the Garda and politicians likening them to ISIS, IMO.
What's any of this to do with securing publicly owned water supply/infrastructure from privatisation?

After that post, a good question.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What's any of this to do with securing publicly owned water supply/infrastructure from privatisation?

Nothing - the ruse has been dropped now and everyone is clear that this has nothing to do with preventing privatisation. The architects of this amendment have admitted as much about a week ago.

pearcider

piplip87 wrote: »

Water Charges of 3 quid a week per household would go a long way to fixing the infrastructure. Then the money saved from government expenditure can go towards building houses.... It's quite simple really yet those who led the protests on water are the same ones leading protests on housing.

I would also like to know where all the Jobs to ensure not guilty money went if they all got legal aid ?

3 quid a week. 150 a year not bad!! Yeah sure! It’s 450 a year now in the UK. About 1300 a year in USA. The price will go up when it’s privatised. That’s the whole point.

blanch152

pearcider wrote: »

3 quid a week. 150 a year not bad!! Yeah sure! It’s 450 a year now in the UK. About 1300 a year in USA. The price will go up when it’s privatised. That’s the whole point.

When it's privatised?

I wish that people would present evidence to back up grandiose statements such as that. I have yet to see any credible evidence that there was ever any agenda for privatisation.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

When it's privatised?

I wish that people would present evidence to back up grandiose statements such as that. I have yet to see any credible evidence that there was ever any agenda for privatisation.

No credible evidence in 2011 that tax payers were going to be scalped for a clusterf**k that cost north of 1 Billion euro either.
Just shows what a stroke of a government minister`s pen can do.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

No credible evidence in 2011 that tax payers were going to be scalped for a clusterf**k that cost north of 1 Billion euro either.
Just shows what a stroke of a government minister`s pen can do.

Don't know what you think cost €1 billion that wasn't going to cost that anyway.

If you mean Irish Water, well I do think that was in the Programme for Government, and had been part of the plan of the FF/Green government. I also think that SF supported it at that time as well, though they had so many u-turns, I don't think even they can pinpoint what their position was at any one time.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Don't know what you think cost €1 billion that wasn't going to cost that anyway.

If you mean Irish Water, well I do think that was in the Programme for Government, and had been part of the plan of the FF/Green government. I also think that SF supported it at that time as well, though they had so many u-turns, I don't think even they can pinpoint what their position was at any one time.

Not just costed 1 Billion euros.

Absolutely squandered 1 Billion euros on a complete and total fiasco.

It was not u-turns from FG and Labour in 2011.
It was both lying through their teeth in order to get into government.