Should the rest of us subsidise South West of England's water bills?
- Thread starter danny la rouge
- Start date
Looby
Well-Known Member
Should the rest of us subsidise South West of Endland's water bills?
Well now I know why my water bills are so high!
I think the current arrangements are unfair but I'm not sure how someone in Birmingham would feel about their bill going up especially if they never go to the seaside.
Well now I know why my water bills are so high!
I think the current arrangements are unfair but I'm not sure how someone in Birmingham would feel about their bill going up especially if they never go to the seaside.
The thing is, it's not just your seaside is it?
It's all of ours, we should all equally share the burden of maintaining our coastline, the only people who should be arguing about that are the SNP or Plaid.
If the person in Brum doesn't want to pay a few pennies to help with maintaining a bit of coastline integrity, then they should fuck off to Switzerland or summat.
Brum cunts take water from Wales.
King Biscuit Time
Well-Known Member
We'll see who's coastline it is when Tidal Power Generation kicks in and starts providing a hefty chunk of the UK's energy requirements.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
If the costs are spread across the country, it'll not mean much of an increase. There are just some things we all need to take responsibility for, whether we use them or not, like sick children's hospitals, for example.
Manchester cunts take water from us.
King Biscuit Time
Well-Known Member
Yes, it would probably make more sense for Birmingham and Manchester's water to be pumped in direct from Cumbria or Dartmoor.
kained&able
Here for the football.
No i don't think we should. Not while water is privatised anyway.
Nationalise it and then i'm all for it.
dave
Nationalise it and then i'm all for it.
dave
That's a very good point, I hereby revise my answer.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Of course it shouldn't be private. What should happen is something along the lines of: a national levy is paid by all, and divided between local authorities depending on the percentage of coastline they need to maintain.
Of course, that isn't going to happen.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
...and meanwhile fuck 'em? Let the people in the south west (one of th countries poorest regions) have their bills (not yours, theirs) pushed up to ridiculous levels? There should be direct subsidy - take it off the bills - not given to the company.
And to others, your bills are high because the system works on profit not need - not because you're paying for the cornish to live the life of riley.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Also tax to fuck the people who make big money off those beaches and use the money gathered for upkeep.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Perhaps there could be some sort of mutual subsidised trade agreement. Water in return for pasties and cider.
toggle
wobbly
If anything, it is about paying for the survival of Cornwall.
The tourist industry is one of the main sources of income and the coastlines are a major part of the reason people come here. We already have objective 1 status, as a region poor enough to need EU support. We have to keep the tourists coming in, but that entails the costs of keeping the coastline in good condition.
In effect, the people working for minimum wage for half the year in the tourist industry are the ones paying for the upkeep of the beaches.
We could look at taxing the buisnesses making money out of tourists staying, but a lot of them aren't exactly raking it in. There are a lot that are barely breaking even in good years. I would love to tax the living crap out of the people that own a home here that is only occupied for 2 months of the year, but I can't see any gvt doing that.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Yes, it's the people working there who are largely subsiding the companies making money off those beaches.
toggle
wobbly
Thing is, you need to differentiate between a big business raking it in (there aren't that many) and a one man operation selling ice creams that works 6 months of the year only and barely makes enough to make it till the next year. Both are businesses making money off the beaches. The latter is a far more common situation. An increase in business taxes has the same effect on him as the water rates.
toggle
wobbly
the national trust own a huge amount as well
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That's easy enough to do. The Walkbaout vs man in the ice cream van he owns.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I mean companies who make money from people going to the beaches - from their location. The pub on on perranporth beach for example - the surf shops etc.
madzone
Physically unfavourable
You mean businesses?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
When i said companies i guess i sort of did mean businesses yes.
toggle
wobbly
I don't think all of these places are the money trees you see to think they are. Most of the shops in Perranporth, to use an example, only open for half the year. The place is utterly dismal in the winter. The wind keeps people off the beach, if you drive along some of the roads you can see the effect on the wind on the stunted trees. A combi of sand blown into your face and horizontal freezing drizzle isn't a great attraction. They rake it in for july and august, but this covers a whole year's worth of expenses.
madzone
Physically unfavourable
Well, it's an important distinction surely? Companies sums up an image of big business whilst, as toggle says, it's more often than not an ice cream bloke or someone selling tea from a hut and struggling to break even.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
They're there because they are making money. It doesn't matter if it's only for a few months or less. Do you know how much those things cost to set up? They're not starvelings. They're turning over a profit. Part of that profit is from the beaches that everyone else down there pays for one way or another. There's no reason to subsidise them. Let them pay their way.
kained&able
Here for the football.
Then the government should have the balls to make an increase in tax to cover the upkeep of the beaches not make a levy taking money from one company to another.
Privitiseation means that each company is in it for themselves and charges on an individual basis, if the government needs to step in renationalise the water companies, or the upkeep of the beaches. Not this half arsed bollocks.
I'd go with renationalise personally.
dave
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That's pretty much what i said. And in the meantime? Fuck the cornish?
toggle
wobbly
If you average out the money they pull in over the whole year, then it isn't as much as you seem to think it is. A lot aren't off to their other job once the tourists go home, there aren't enough other jobs, their income over the summer is it. I know people that run small businesses here. They aren't rich people.
taxing the crap out of the areas small businesses because they make what looks like a good income when you see them in the summer is a recipe for fucking us over, probably more so than the high water rates.
Similar threads
- Poll
