View Poll Results: Should we pay for water?

Voters
80. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    59 73.75%
  • No

    15 18.75%
  • Maybe

    6 7.50%
Page 4 of 31 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 303

Thread: Should we pay for water?

  1. #31
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,771

    Re: Should we pay for water?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    Only if you educate the people to boil rainwater first. Then drink it after it cools down. Otherwise, you may end up with a damaged liver especially if you're drinking rainwater in places like Detroit that is an industrial city.
    Great point. People indeed should receive access to free classes on how to safely manage rainwater.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  2. #32
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Should we pay for water?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    Banning or taxing rainwater collection is done for the exact same reason that in many states, it is becoming increasingly legally difficult to live off the grid.
    Have you thought about why that is? MUNICIPAL water districts require a basic level of funding to continue operations and provide masses of people in their district with clean, safe water. To keep this at a cost even the poor can afford they require that all within the district participate in the funding. The more folks who go their own way, the more costly the necessary service becomes for everyone else in the district. Remember, these districts are non-profit.

  3. #33
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,142

    Re: Should we pay for water?

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Already answered in subsequent posts.



    You're begging for the return of mass water and mosquito bourne disease throughout densely populated areas.



    Already the case.

    Than you really didn't have to respond

    No, but water companies would love you to keep perpetuating that.

    No, it's not.

  4. #34
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Should we pay for water?

    Quote Originally Posted by shavingcollywob View Post
    Provided by who?
    The state


  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Should we pay for water?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    Great point. People indeed should receive access to free classes on how to safely manage rainwater.
    Don't people already learn that kind of stuff in school?

  6. #36
    Sage
    faithful_servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,699

    Re: Should we pay for water?

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    The reason I brought this up, because if a major US city has half its population unable to afford basic water supply, it speaks to how broken our capitalist system is becoming.

    Walmart advertises, they'll provide $250 billion worth of new US production. That's one company trying to rebuild public image, with a $.25 trillion dollars. Yet half of the citizens of Detroit can't afford freaking water, something is wrong.

    A socialist gov't isn't the answer but it's going to become a necessity if corporations don't put something back in, instead of leveraging their ability to hoard money. Starbucks is going to start offering a free college education to its employees.

    Paying workers more, with better benefits would be a big step in the right direction, and stimulate the economy dramatically putting funds in the hands of spenders.
    How does moving money from one spender to another equate to more spending?? If you increase a companies operating cost without a payback, they are going to either cut costs in other areas or increase prices. They are NOT going to cut profits. Do you understand that?? A company like WM is NOT going to cut profits, so if they had to pay their employees more, you would either end up with fewer employees, fewer benefits, lower quality products or higher prices. Right now, your average WM runs on a near skeleton crew (my wife works at one and I can guarantee you that they run thin, but push came to shove, they'd have no qualms about running even thinner) and your proposal would force out a lot of full time employees their full time jobs, cost a lot of marginal employees their jobs, and you'd see even more "outs" on the shelves, less help on the floor, higher prices and more self-checkouts.
    Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

  7. #37
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should we pay for water?

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    I suspect something is wrong in Detroit, but it is not a failure of the Capitalist system.
    There are a lot more problems there, than people not paying their water bill.

    The Capitalist system is flailing on so many levels right now, the gov't can't provide funds fast enough. On one hand they're using the FED to pump $75 billion a month into the banking system and even more into social, safety net programs. We're losing the middle class faster than in the Great Depression and will have a large, working poor class juxtaposed against a super wealthy ruling class.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Should we pay for water?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    The state
    If it needs provided to you how can it be a right?

  9. #39
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Should we pay for water?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    Of course not, don't take things out of context. This is one of those things which should be a shared minimal expense of the community. No one has to make affirmative steps to preserve but they should not be allowed to take affirmative steps to prevent.

    Which is why I said a "cost plus" method should be established.

    You may pay $10, but others, like me have had to pay upward of over $100/ a month. These kind of payments afford huge bloated salaries for bureaucrats.
    Nonsense. Again, your cost plus method is already in play. Your water bill is based upon your usage and at a rate determined by the community's usage.

  10. #40
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should we pay for water?

    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    How does moving money from one spender to another equate to more spending?? If you increase a companies operating cost without a payback, they are going to either cut costs in other areas or increase prices. They are NOT going to cut profits. Do you understand that?? A company like WM is NOT going to cut profits, so if they had to pay their employees more, you would either end up with fewer employees, fewer benefits, lower quality products or higher prices. Right now, your average WM runs on a near skeleton crew (my wife works at one and I can guarantee you that they run thin, but push came to shove, they'd have no qualms about running even thinner) and your proposal would force out a lot of full time employees their full time jobs, cost a lot of marginal employees their jobs, and you'd see even more "outs" on the shelves, less help on the floor, higher prices and more self-checkouts.
    Because the spender pays more for the product than the maker of it, so there's a net profit increase for the employer/seller. It's almost as easy as giving someone $20 for $40 worth of labor, then they in turn give you that $20 back for $10 worth of product. The employer/seller made $30 dollars off their investment and got the original $20 back.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Page 4 of 31 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •