Register to Comment
Page 3 of 33 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 321
Like Tree118Likes
  1. #21
    Marcos the black Marcos the black is offline
    Marcos the black's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    18,736

    Quote Originally Posted by Wascurito View Post
    Figures released by the Irish Times show how water consumption per capita is highest in affluent areas of Dublin and tends to below average in the less well-off areas, in some cases 40% lower.

    So poorer people use less water but still have to contribute via taxes regardless of how little they use. Meanwhile the leaders of the anti-water charges campaign such as Paul Murphy and Richard Boyd Barrett are from wealthy areas of Dublin. What a coincidence!

    So not only does their economic class benefit, but Murphy, Rich Boy et al managed to dupe a lot of mugs into thinking that they were the ones who'd win under a no charges regime.

    In a country known for stroke politics, that stroke beats them all.

    Water consumption rates highest in affluent areas of Dublin
    Good..
    We were going to have a pay for what you use system... but de peeple objected so now this is how it works.. What did you expect? More affluent people have bigger houses/gardens so will use more.
    Doesn't take Paul Murphy to work that out for you does it?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #22
    redmonite redmonite is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,231

    Quote Originally Posted by Socratus O' Pericles View Post
    That's a stretch buddy. Those of us who actually live in LA houses KNOW for a fact that rich people in big houses use more water and everything else than we do. The anti water charges people didn't dupe US. Dinny has obviously duped YOU.

    Tell me this why wouldn't the fakers ( spell checker for galers)have a referendum to guarantee that IW would stay in public ownership? PBP would have settled on that
    Dinny can put fresh water in his pool every day thanks to Paul Murphy and friends.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #23
    hammer hammer is online now
    hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    67,086

    Look the exchequer will cover it from CT receipts.

    Dont stress

    Why are the eft not up in arms thought that ordinary middle class home owners are getting screwed by LPT which was far in excess of Water Charges.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #24
    hammer hammer is online now
    hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    67,086

    Quote Originally Posted by redmonite View Post
    Dinny can put fresh water in his pool every day thanks to Paul Murphy and friends.
    From Malta. Now that is some hose
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #25
    hammer hammer is online now
    hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    67,086

    Quote Originally Posted by Wascurito View Post
    The ones I'm talking about were PAYE folks, albeit IT contractors who were paid a daily rate.

    Fundamentally, this situation is completely at variance with the supposed leftist standpoint of Murphy and Boyd Barrett. Wealthier people are using more of a precious resource. They shouldn't have it subsidized from the public purse.

    Bear in mind that Murphy and Boyd Barrett are even opposed to excess usage charges which could be tailored to hit only the high usage households.
    You have to laugh.

    Solidarity TDs paid far in excess of ordinary decent folk when you add in pay & expenses.

    Are the two boys living in social houses ?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #26
    silverharp silverharp is offline
    silverharp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    15,351

    Quote Originally Posted by Toland View Post
    This is one of the main reasons for the introduction of metered water charges: a case I've been putting since 2011 to hoots from posters who swallowed the populist brick that progressive water charges were somehow right wing.

    The sound of chickens coming home to roost, methinks.
    its a utility like anything else, it probably irked people at the time that it was just another way of paying pack the German banks that anschlussed the economy. In pure economic terms though the marginal cost of supplying water in tiny compared to the fixed cost so if one house uses 25% more water than another the bill should only be a small % higher.
    They can reintroduce it , they just need to ring fence which other tax is going down
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #27
    recedite recedite is online now

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    564

    Quote Originally Posted by hammer View Post
    Gardens are normally FAR bigger in affluent areas.
    True, but the figures are from 2015 which was not a particularly good summer. Most people would not water their garden unless it was very dry.

    IMO the answer is a lot simpler. Why would anyone expect a big Georgian house in Rathmines housing 15 culchies living in bedsits, to use the same amount of water as a 1 or a 2 bed semi-d in Ballyfermot housing only 2 people?
    Areas in Dublin 6 include Milltown, Ranelagh, Rathmines and Rathgar, among the most expensive residential areas bordering the city....
    By comparison, the lowest rates, outside the city centre, were in less well-off neighbourhoods. The lowest domestic consumption pattern for metered supply was recorded as Dublin 20, which had an average daily rate of 290 litres. Dublin 20 includes Chapelizod and Palmerstown.
    Oh yeah.. I forgot, bedsits don't exist any more; they were made illegal. Just like water meters.
    Its a crazy little country we live in!
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #28
    Wascurito Wascurito is offline
    Wascurito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    6,871

    Quote Originally Posted by Toland View Post
    The idea that there should be a provision in the constitution to govern how water and by whom water is supplied is utterly absurd. You might as well have a constitutional provision on how dogs' and cats' homes must be run.
    I'm open to correction but I think it was just going to be about ownership of the resource itself. Ever since the horror of the 8th amendment, I've been nervous about using the Constitution as a tool for copperfastening a particular law ad infinitum but I'd go along with it if it got us over the water-user-pays-for-what-they-use principle that (weirdly) seems to infuriate some people.

    Anyway, the anti-water charge fanatics still won't pay even if they get a referendum so I suppose that's one more reason why it's on the backburner.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #29
    Wascurito Wascurito is offline
    Wascurito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    6,871

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcos the black View Post
    Good..
    We were going to have a pay for what you use system... but de peeple objected so now this is how it works.. What did you expect? More affluent people have bigger houses/gardens so will use more.
    Doesn't take Paul Murphy to work that out for you does it?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #30
    gerhard dengler gerhard dengler is offline
    gerhard dengler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    48,130

    2015 data.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 3 of 33 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment