Sinn Fein out of the traps on the Anti water rates issue

taurus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
338
Shinners got some good coverage in the Star ( of all papers) regarding the launch of their anti water rates web. site. Apparently there the only party completely opposed to water rates. Labour done the usual, eh yea, but no, but ehhh !!yea, but no, but...... Act. Reasons given on Web site along the lines of the following. A) Leakage, millions of gallons of water are lost due to coroded pipes, damaged infrastructure. Up to 50% of treated water !!
B) The city councils are owed millions of Euros in uncollected commercial water rates. Collect this money and invest it in fixing the leaking pipes.
C) The water we drink is covered in the collection of general income tax.

Very logical arguments there !!!
 


ONQ

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
476
Logical arguments from the Shinners, indeed..

Next can we expect logical arguments applied to the economy from the Shinners?
 

Ingersoll

Active member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
233
The sad fact is that they (the shinners) might be right, or not - but as they are bunch of criminals and killers, it will be a cold day in hell before I can respond favorably to anything they do.

That being said, water charges are covered by our taxes, and just where we are supposed to find the money to pay for them remains a mystery.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
29,421
Smart stuff. They need to start hitting up the radio stations now. This actually isn't the time for SF to be rational, they should be on an election footing, trying to steal disaffected left voters from Labour. Every time Labour inch towards the centre, SF need to be there to mop up the voters.
 

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,397
As always SF are light on the true effect of these things and as Adams showed during the last election their "economic" policies are often ill thought-out..

A) In some parts of the country there are huge leakage issues, less problems in others. As argued in another thread, water infrastructure also costs an awful lot of money.

B) Mainly because they are punitive and it is a bit of a dumb way to pitch it considering that most business commercial rates payers come in that micro business (less than 10 people) grouping, especially if SF also claim to be pro-jobs.

C) Guess we need to pay an awful lot more "general" tax to cover this argument.
 

Oldira1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,466
The sad fact is that they (the shinners) might be right, or not - but as they are bunch of criminals and killers, it will be a cold day in hell before I can respond favorably to anything they do.

That being said, water charges are covered by our taxes, and just where we are supposed to find the money to pay for them remains a mystery.
Most childish and immature post in history.
 

taurus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
338
Logical arguments from the Shinners, indeed..

Next can we expect logical arguments applied to the economy from the Shinners?
Go to the Sinn Fein web site and read the last budget submission, Obviously one will be prepared for the next budget. if you've read them and disagree so be it , but i suspect that you have'nt and are just being lead by the nose.
 

realistic1

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
11,261
The sad fact is that they (the shinners) might be right, or not - but as they are bunch of criminals and killers, it will be a cold day in hell before I can respond favorably to anything they do.

That being said, water charges are covered by our taxes, and just where we are supposed to find the money to pay for them remains a mystery.
The people in FF/FG and Labour really have a good laugh when they read the above type of statements, even though their own Political parties emerged from killings etc. The status quo will never change with the above mentality. Water charges! here we come!
 

Oldira1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,466
As always SF are light on the true effect of these things and as Adams showed during the last election their "economic" policies are often ill thought-out..

A) In some parts of the country there are huge leakage issues, less problems in others. As argued in another thread, water infrastructure also costs an awful lot of money.

B) Mainly because they are punitive and it is a bit of a dumb move way to pitch it considering that most business commercial rates payers come in that micro business (less than 10 people) grouping, especially if SF also claim to be pro-jobs.

C) Guess we need to pay an awful lot more "general" tax to cover this argument.
Would you not think a right to water is equal to a right to education and health provision? General taxes pay for those so surely it should pay for drinking water?
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
63,162
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
Smart stuff. They need to start hitting up the radio stations now. This actually isn't the time for SF to be rational, they should be on an election footing, trying to steal disaffected left voters from Labour. Every time Labour inch towards the centre, SF need to be there to mop up the voters.
Quite right. Pick the demagogue issue, wrap it up as principle and start knocking on the doors. As long as everyone learns the single transferrable speech, bob's yer Onkle.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
Would you not think a right to water is equal to a right to education and health provision? General taxes pay for those so surely it should pay for drinking water?
You are not being asked to pay for drinking water, you are being asked to pay for the treatment, infrastructure and delivery of it.
 

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,397
Would you not think a right to water is equal to a right to education and health provision? General taxes pay for those so surely it should pay for drinking water?
Clean water is but seeing as our health costs suck up lots of of our budget already, higher taxes would be the only way to vindicate that argument. IMO we pay too little general tax. If they want it to be covered they'll need far higher taxes and I'd like to see them be more honest about that. The trouble with general tax is that it disappear into the national coffers and gets used for every emergency. Water charges can be given to local authorities who actually provide the service.
 

taurus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
338
As always SF are light on the true effect of these things and as Adams showed during the last election their "economic" policies are often ill thought-out..

A) In some parts of the country there are huge leakage issues, less problems in others. As argued in another thread, water infrastructure also costs an awful lot of money.

B) Mainly because they are punitive and it is a bit of a dumb way to pitch it considering that most business commercial rates payers come in that micro business (less than 10 people) grouping, especially if SF also claim to be pro-jobs.

C) Guess we need to pay an awful lot more "general" tax to cover this argument.

Leaks are leaks , and should be repaired,no matter where they are.

it is also punitive to inflict water rates on joe Public because "business" has decide NOT to pay. Accepted, of course, there are some business's that can't afford to pay, but how many Major corporations have'nt paid. (one for someone with more time than me )

Use the "collected commercial water rates to replace /repair pipes and create construction jobs by doing so.
 

CarnivalOfAction

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
16,393
Smart stuff. They need to start hitting up the radio stations now. This actually isn't the time for SF to be rational, they should be on an election footing, trying to steal disaffected left voters from Labour. Every time Labour inch towards the centre, SF need to be there to mop up the voters.
Yep Sync, they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They can't miss this one.

I'm amazed that the latest scam to raise funds, charging for water, is also being supported by FG and Labour. Since hardly any meters are installed, this is likely to be a flat charge of several hundred euro per year. Such a tax is very regressive as it hits the least well off proportionally much harder.

If the Government really was serious about conserving water, it would harness a tiny fraction of the €50bn being wasted on greedy banks to use unemployed building workers to repair the leaking pipes which cause 40% of all treated water to be lost. And, if ppl have 2 pay a big fixed charge, they will want "value for their money" and use MORE water, ie,it will be counterproductive.

During the very cold spell last winter, a sea of water was lost by burst pipes — the inlets from the mains being too close to the surface due to light touch building regulation. An even greater ocean was wasted by householders letting their taps running to prevent frozen pipes. Again, if only 0.1% of the bank bailout was invested in properly insulating these pipes, it would not only reduce wastage, but also provide a badly needed jobs and spending stimulus.
 

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,397
Leaks are leaks , and should be repaired,no matter where they are.

it is also punitive to inflict water rates on joe Public because "business" has decide NOT to pay. Accepted, of course, there are some business's that can't afford to pay, but how many Major corporations have'nt paid. (one for someone with more time than me )

Use the "collected commercial water rates to replace /repair pipes and create construction jobs by doing so.
Joe Public used to have to pay. Have a guess who stopped him having to pay?

You should check out some local chambers of commerce to see the effect of commercial rates. They are full of real people not nameless corporations.
 

turdsl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
26,002
As always SF are light on the true effect of these things and as Adams showed during the last election their "economic" policies are often ill thought-out..

A) In some parts of the country there are huge leakage issues, less problems in others. As argued in another thread, water infrastructure also costs an awful lot of money.

B) Mainly because they are punitive and it is a bit of a dumb way to pitch it considering that most business commercial rates payers come in that micro business (less than 10 people) grouping, especially if SF also claim to be pro-jobs.

C) Guess we need to pay an awful lot more "general" tax to cover this argument.

Just to put things in context Cowens and Brutons were just as bad and both of them expected to be minister if finance. at least Gerry had some excuse,there was no chance of that happening.
 

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,397
Just to put things in context Cowens and Brutons were just as bad and both of them expected to be minister if finance. at least Gerry had some excuse,there was no chance of that happening.
My point is that SF economic policies do not really bear any kind of credible scrutiny. These proposals are simply populist.
 

theoutsider

Active member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
159
Nice to see Sinn Fein are standing up for the poor unfortunates in Foxrock who can't afford water charges
 

CarnivalOfAction

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
16,393
Just to put things in context Cowens and Brutons were just as bad and both of them expected to be minister if finance. at least Gerry had some excuse,there was no chance of that happening.
I thot Adams was a disaster at the time; maybe it was one of his long-game Machiavellian schemes to ensure SF didn't lie down with the FF dogs & get a terminal dose of fleas? Look at what happened to the poor Greens!
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top