Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

**ALL THINGS IRISH WATER/WATER RELATED** Part 2 - MOD WARNING IN OP

12467…132

Comments

  • #92
    moxin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,203 ✭✭✭moxin


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    VinLieger wrote: »
    Did I say IW was right in this thread or anywhere in the last thread? No I didn't. Yeah it's a shambles but the majority of people protesting it imo are doing so not because of any the corruption that's been highlighted thats just a handy banner to hide behind while they just don't want to pay for water based on how much they use.

    Yes they are protesting over corruption relating to IW and Denis O'Brien's water meter contract as well as having to pay twice for water.


  • #93
    yipeeeee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,605 ✭✭✭yipeeeee


    Middle income earners will just end up having to pay through tax increases while a huge amount get away with paying nothing.

    Same as always.


  • #94
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,844 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth
    moxin wrote: »
    Yes they are protesting over corruption relating to IW and Denis O'Brien's water meter contract as well as having to pay twice for water.

    Sigh trotting out the same old "paying for water twice" mantra that's is just a logical fallacy, we pay income tax, VAT and whatever else that happens to go toward's water. It won't going forward and we have had reduction's to compensate for it and will get more next year.

    A hell of a lot of people don't pay these taxes and are getting water for free explain that?

    You all will be crying foul again when you have no drinkable water in your houses 10 years from now.


  • #95
    Tinkersbell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭Tinkersbell


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    VinLieger wrote: »
    With what money? The magical money tree called "taxing rich people" the populist's in SF and AAA believe in?

    We are in debt still and are barely breaking even with budget's and that's with a reduction across the board for everyone who pays income tax.

    We need to pay for water to fix the leaks and invest refusing to believe this fact won't make it go away like the politicians you listen would have you believe

    We were well able to take on billions in debt to bail out baknrupt banks.
    I'm sure at this stage another few billion to sort out a basic of life wouldn't be too hard.


  • #96
    yipeeeee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,605 ✭✭✭yipeeeee


    Tinkersbell wrote: »
    We were well able to take on billions in debt to bail out baknrupt banks.
    I'm sure at this stage another few billion to sort out a basic of life wouldn't be too hard.

    Bankrupt banks from people taking out mortgages they now can't pay back.

    Guess who has to pay these back??


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,844 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth
    Tinkersbell wrote: »
    We were well able to take on billions in debt to bail out baknrupt banks.
    I'm sure at this stage another few billion to sort out a basic of life wouldn't be too hard.

    Okay fine we take out more debt to pay to fix the leak's who pays for the debt? We raise taxes again and our kid's end up suffering? Classic average Irish voter mentality of "push it down the road and let the next generation deal with it"


  • #98
    Tinkersbell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭Tinkersbell


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    VinLieger wrote: »
    Okay fine we take out more debt to pay to fix the leak's who pays for the debt? We raise taxes again and our kid's end up suffering? Classic average Irish voter mentality of "push it down the road and let the next generation deal with it"

    Like FG did with the anglo promissory notes you mean?


  • #99
    Tinkersbell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭Tinkersbell


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    yipeeeee wrote: »
    Bankrupt banks from people taking out mortgages they now can't pay back.

    Guess who has to pay these back??

    I do.
    And you probably do too if you're a working person.
    I didn't ask anyone to take on the bankrupt banks debt in my name though.
    Did you?


  • #100
    moxin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,203 ✭✭✭moxin


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    VinLieger wrote: »
    Sigh trotting out the same old "paying for water twice" mantra that's is just a logical fallacy, we pay income tax, VAT and whatever else that happens to go toward's water. It won't going forward and we have had reduction's to compensate for it and will get more next year.

    A hell of a lot of people don't pay these taxes and are getting water for free explain that?

    You all will be crying foul again when you have no drinkable water in your houses 10 years from now.

    We are paying twice, they intend to put additional burden onto the individual by imposing a water charge without reducing VAT and motor tax. VAT and motor tax were increased to pay for water back in the 80s'\90s.

    Everyone rich and poor has paid for water through VAT and motor tax, there are no freeloaders.


  • #101
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,844 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth
    Tinkersbell wrote: »
    Like FG did with the anglo promissory notes you mean?

    Exactly do you just want to keep doing it? Also I dunno what you learned in school but pointing finger's over past mistakes doesn't actually solve any problem's going forward.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    yipeeeee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,605 ✭✭✭yipeeeee


    moxin wrote: »
    We are paying twice, they intend to put additional burden onto the individual by imposing a water charge without reducing VAT and motor tax. VAT and motor tax were increased to pay for water back in the 80s'\90s.

    Everyone rich and poor has paid for water through VAT and motor tax, there are no freeloaders.

    Oh there are many of them.


  • #103
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,844 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth
    moxin wrote: »
    We are paying twice, they intend to put additional burden onto the individual by imposing a water charge without reducing VAT and motor tax. VAT and motor tax were increased to pay for water back in the 80s'\90s.

    Everyone rich and poor has paid for water through VAT and motor tax, there are no freeloaders.

    Considering it all still goes into one big pot I disagree, if there was a clear line from one to the other you would be right but since 1997 a lot of thing's have changed, like we are now losing 40% of our water so maybe those taxes weren't enough? Or we need to rethink how we go about paying for water and managing it as a vital piece of nationwide infrastructure?


  • #104
    Tinkersbell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭Tinkersbell


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    VinLieger wrote: »
    Exactly do you just want to keep doing it? Also I dunno what you learned in school but pointing finger's over past mistakes doesn't actually solve any problem's going forward.

    I learned that gambling is a mugs game.
    That gamblers gamble and sometimes they win and sometimes they lose.
    The ones who gambled on this place were paid out, win or lose.
    The reason we now have a water tax is because the money that was been used to pay for water has been diverted to pay the interest on loans this state took out to pay off gamblers losing bets.
    That, in any sane world, is wrong.


  • #105
    twowheelsgood
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 759 ✭✭✭twowheelsgood


    Tinkersbell wrote: »
    The reason we now have a water tax is because the money that was been used to pay for water has been diverted to pay the interest on loans this state took out to pay off gamblers losing bets.
    The bank debts are only about a third of our overall national debt. We would still be deep in the mire without them.


  • #106
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,844 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth
    Tinkersbell wrote: »
    I learned that gambling is a mugs game.
    That gamblers gamble and sometimes they win and sometimes they lose.
    The ones who gambled on this place were paid out, win or lose.
    The reason we now have a water tax is because the money that was been used to pay for water has been diverted to pay the interest on loans this state took out to pay off gamblers losing bets.
    That, in any sane world, is wrong.

    Yes it is but I hate to use this phrase "we are where we are" so what is your solution for fixing our water infrastructure?


  • #107
    Tinkersbell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭Tinkersbell


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    twowheelsgood wrote: »
    The bank debts are only about a third of our overall national debt. We would still be deep in the mire without them.

    I think if we had that €60 billion or so in our hands this would be a far different place.


  • #108
    moxin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,203 ✭✭✭moxin


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    VinLieger wrote: »
    Considering it all still goes into one big pot I disagree, if there was a clear line from one to the other you would be right but since 1997 a lot of thing's have changed, like we are now losing 40% of our water so maybe those taxes weren't enough? Or we need to rethink how we go about paying for water and managing it as a vital piece of nationwide infrastructure?

    We always lost water through leaks, it didn't start in 1997! The various govts didn't bother to fix the problem and kicked the can down the road each time.

    They found 700m to set up Irish Water and install the meters, money that should have been spent on water infrastructure.


  • #109
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,844 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth
    moxin wrote: »
    We always lost water through leaks, it didn't start in 1997! The various govts didn't bother to fix the problem and kicked the can down the road each time.

    They found 700m to set up Irish Water and install the meters, money that should have been spent on water infrastructure.

    Yes it should have but it's gone now so do we just chalk that 700mil up to a bad deal and scrap IW altogether? Again everyone shout's about shutting it down but nobody has a viable alternative


  • #110
    Tinkersbell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭Tinkersbell


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    VinLieger wrote: »
    Yes it is but I hate to use this phrase "we are where we are" so what is your solution for fixing our water infrastructure?

    Sort out the Irish water set up and fund it through our general taxes.
    I know you won't like this, and I'm not a SF or AAA or whoever you mentioned in a previous post, but I will not be paying a separate water tax.
    I can well afford it but I consider that I pay quite enough towards the running of this country as it is.
    This tax is my 'straw'.


  • #111
    twowheelsgood
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 759 ✭✭✭twowheelsgood


    Tinkersbell wrote: »
    I think if we had that €60 billion or so in our hands this would be a far different place.
    We wouldn't have 60 odd billion in our hands but we wouldn't have to pay 1.6 billion in interest on it.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,844 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth
    Tinkersbell wrote: »
    Sort out the Irish water set up and fund it through our general taxes.
    I know you won't like this, and I'm not a SF or AAA or whoever you mentioned in a previous post, but I will not be paying a separate water tax.
    I can well afford it but I consider that I pay quite enough towards the running of this country as it is.
    This tax is my 'straw'.

    Would you be happy paying for your water through taxes based on how much you use?


  • #113
    Tinkersbell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭Tinkersbell


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    twowheelsgood wrote: »
    We wouldn't have 60 odd billion in our hands but we wouldn't have to pay 1.6 billion in interest on it.

    That €1.6 billion per year you mention would pay for a top of the range water system, wouldn't it?


  • #114
    Tinkersbell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭Tinkersbell


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    VinLieger wrote: »
    Would you be happy paying for your water through taxes based on how much you use?

    No.
    Conservation is a good idea but there's no incentive to conserve with the set up as it is.
    If people don't use enough water the company can apply for an increase in rates.
    This is Ireland, this is what will happen.
    This is the thin edge of yet another wedge and it's the one where I draw the line.
    Tell you what, scrap the tax on me buying and paying for my own home and I'll pay for water.


  • #115
    twowheelsgood
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 759 ✭✭✭twowheelsgood


    Tinkersbell wrote: »
    That €1.6 billion per year you mention would pay for a top of the range water system, wouldn't it?
    It would. And the 8 billion we pay in total in interest on our national debt would pay for a whole lot more.

    You might think a salient lesson here might be that it's not a great idea to be piling up our national debt?


  • #116
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,844 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth
    Tinkersbell wrote: »
    No.
    Conservation is a good idea but there's no incentive to conserve with the set up as it is.
    If people don't use enough water the company can apply for an increase in rates.
    This is Ireland, this is what will happen.
    This is the thin edge of yet another wedge and it's the one where I draw the line.
    Tell you what, scrap the tax on me buying and paying for my own home and I'll pay for water.

    Im talking about under your proposed system, if that were in place would you be happy to pay by how much you use?


  • #117
    moxin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,203 ✭✭✭moxin


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    VinLieger wrote: »
    Yes it should have but it's gone now so do we just chalk that 700mil up to a bad deal and scrap IW altogether? Again everyone shout's about shutting it down but nobody has a viable alternative

    How much did the 1% cut in the top rate of income tax in the last budget cost again?


  • #118
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,844 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth
    moxin wrote: »
    How much did the 1% cut in the top rate of income tax in the last budget cost again?

    I dunno but considering the top 1% of earners pay 21% of income tax Id say quite a lot


  • #119
    Tinkersbell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭Tinkersbell


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    VinLieger wrote: »
    Im talking about under your proposed system, if that were in place would you be happy to pay by how much you use?

    No.
    I see water as the one basic fundamental service that a state should provide form the general tax take.
    Everything else is optional.


  • #120
    moxin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,203 ✭✭✭moxin


    I do not want to pay for water in any way
    VinLieger wrote: »
    I dunno but considering the top 1% of earners pay 21% of income tax Id say quite a lot

    Then put it back up. They are hardly gonna starve on high earnings. Point being, the govt found money to cut the top rate of income tax, now thats proof they can find any extra money for the likes of any shortfall in balancing the books.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    twowheelsgood
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 759 ✭✭✭twowheelsgood


    Tinkersbell wrote: »
    No.
    I see water as the one basic fundamental service that a state should provide form the general tax take.
    Everything else is optional.
    Odd that virtually no state actually does?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement