Water consumption is highest in affluent areas.

Wascurito

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
7,298
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
 


silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,310
Affluent areas pay the most tax , im not sure I can buy your microscopic contra
 

Wascurito

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
7,298
Affluent areas pay the most tax , im not sure I can buy your microscopic contra
Are you sure that that applies in all cases? They're remarkably apt at taking advantage of every tax loophole going because they can afford the best accountants. I worked with some of these people. Cutting their tax bills to as near to zero as makes no difference is an obsession for them.
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,907
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
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
 

hammer

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
58,180
Solidarity led the chorus for abolishment of Water Charges.

Can they now please move on to LPT.

I`m sick paying in excess of €1000 per annum................on PPR.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,797
Wow. There's a huge difference. The highest usage in Dublin 6 (488 l) is 68% higher per capita than in Dublin 20 (290 l).

What a laugh that the so-called representatives of the poor have created this situation where the rich don't have to pay.

Average water usage in the UK is 150 l per day.
 

Wascurito

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
7,298
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
The "fakers" didn't rule it out. They said it wasn't urgent because given the state of IW at the moment, there's not the remotest chance of it being privatized. No private entity would touch it with a barge pole.

For the record, I'd support a referendum. However, I don't recall any of the anti-water charges folks saying they'd do a volte-face and support water charges if such a referendum were passed. So, it's a separate issue.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
The biggest consumer of Water in Dublin, is "Arter".

I wonder is that very wealthy corporate conglomerate owned by aristocrats paying much for everybody's water ????
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,907
The biggest consumer of Water in Dublin, is "Arter".

I wonder is that very wealthy corporate conglomerate owned by aristocrats paying much for everybody's water ????
I'm sure you could find out easily what the water charges regime for commercial entities is.

Even the most Arden fakers must be able to smell the bulsh of that FG "excuse"!
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,310
Are you sure that that applies in all cases? They're remarkably apt at taking advantage of every tax loophole going because they can afford the best accountants. I worked with some of these people. Cutting their tax bills to as near to zero as makes no difference is an obsession for them.
there is affluent and there is super rich , most people in better of areas are still PAYE
 

hammer

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
58,180
I'm sure you could find out easily what the water charges regime for commercial entities is.

Even the most Arden fakers must be able to smell the bulsh of that FG "excuse"!
We get charged "x" for water and that covers toilet and irregular kettle usage.

Sometimes even a drink of water :)

Way too dear.
 

hammer

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
58,180
Are you sure that that applies in all cases? They're remarkably apt at taking advantage of every tax loophole going because they can afford the best accountants. I worked with some of these people. Cutting their tax bills to as near to zero as makes no difference is an obsession for them.
You say loophole, most say pension contributions :)
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
63,162
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
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
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.
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
63,162
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
The "fakers" didn't rule it out. They said it wasn't urgent because given the state of IW at the moment, there's not the remotest chance of it being privatized. No private entity would touch it with a barge pole.

For the record, I'd support a referendum. However, I don't recall any of the anti-water charges folks saying they'd do a volte-face and support water charges if such a referendum were passed. So, it's a separate issue.
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.
 

PAGE61

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2018
Messages
1,171
Either way, the entity that is Irish water is getting paid by us the public, I disagree with water charges but let us not get into that debate.

As our population grows, no overall plan has been put in place or has been approved by the general public. We have the water but it is through inefficiency that we find our self in the bind we are in . How long are we going to keep throwing money at something that appears to be a headless chicken ?
 

Wascurito

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
7,298
there is affluent and there is super rich , most people in better of areas are still PAYE
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.
 


New Threads

Top