Republicans masturbate to the idea of elderly people being denied the basic necessities in life because they were unable to earn enough for a retirement due to the uncontrollable greed of the ultra wealthy.
RepublicansConservatives masturbate to the idea ofelderly peopleothers being denied the basic necessities in life because they were unable to earn enoughfor a retirement due to the uncontrollable greed ofthe ultra wealthyConservatives.The ultra wealthy wouldn’t make enough money from this to give a shit. This type of petty, ideological driven cruelty is a hallmark of conservatism (see school lunch cuts). Keep in mind, most Democrats trend to the right of center (aka “conservative”) compared to the rest of the developed world.
If it were true that Democrats are conservative, and conservatives want to deny people basic necessities, then we would expect Democrats to not support things like government healthcare, public transportation, or SNAP (food) benefits.
Except they do by overwhelming majority.
In Europe, even most members of the far right support public healthcare and transportation.
In which country is it illegal to let your neighbor use your water?
They mention dollars and social security, so I’m assuming they’re from the USA. I can believe it would be illegal in some states to give out water. Georgia for instance made it illegal to handout water bottles.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/aug/13/man-fined-500-for-sharing-city-water-with/
I’m just gonna leave this here.
At least where I live, you get billed separately for the incoming water and drainage. So if I’m not paying the utility, and get water to my property from my neighbor, then I’m not paying for the drainage I’m using when I flush that water down my drain.
Of course the situation is ridiculous, but this is how I’d imagine this being illegal, you are “stealing” the drainage service.
So your house has a sewage meter that measures the amount of sewage you produce?
No, sewage use is measured by water use.
The person I replied to said they’re billed separately!
It is everywhere I’ve lived in Texas. You pay water and wastewater separately.
But it doesn’t matter because the person paying for your water is also paying for your sewage.
There is nothing stolen.
Okay, so I’m going to leave my two cents here.
I’m European, from a left leaning, liberal (in the sense we actively recognize individual rights and liberties but one individual freedom can not tramble the next), and this exact same legal disposition exists.
Allow me to share the explanation I was given.
Fresh water is not easy to manage, sanitize transport and distribute. The operation is insanely complex and expensive, with huge expenses for quality control, infrastructure and machinery.
Water is a public service here; it is a guaranteed right. You need to reach extreme lengths to have your water service shut off, like having several months of delinquent bills.
however, all of this infrastructure needs to be paid for and it is paid through a serious of added charges, some percentually calculated based off the amount of water you use, others are fixed values charged as service fees (like sanitation and garbage collection).
This implies that if all the water consumed in an entire building was being paid by a single person, the water itself would be paid, but related costs would only be charged once, meaning the portion of money collected to cover the entire maintenance of the services would be severely reduced.
By enforcing that for each home there must be a separate service, the overall cost is diluted and the value service is maintained as cheap as humanly possible and the basic services are maintained as public services, out of the reach of private sector interest.
And, please take my word for, you do not want water, sewage or garbage collection controlled by private companies.
These are sectors where there is a limit for how much expense you can cut. It requires constant investment in machinery and infrastructure to just maintain operations. Improving efficiency requires even higher investment that is only recoupable after several years, if ever.
Privates work for profit. These entities work to just break even, although some can be highly profitable, but profit is always destined to reinvest.
I would argue that doesn’t apply. This post and whatever you call lemmy subr’s is specific to the idiocy in the USA. In Europe like Canada to the best of my knowledge the public utility maintains the infrastructure up to your main. If it leaks before where you get charged, it’s their problem and their pipes.
In most of the USA, their responsibility ends at your property line. Utility companies are already all privatized, electric, gas, water, and sewer. If you have an issue with a leak or distribution, they will shut you off at the property line and let you figure it out.
The added infrastructure cost for supplying water through 1 extra valve or not is paid for by the homeowner when the house was built. The labour to turn your water on and off is paid for at the time through fines and fees for disconnection and connection. There is literally no cost that they bear for your lack of water.
I would argue that doesn’t apply.
And so you did.
This post and whatever you call lemmy subr’s is specific to the idiocy in the USA.
I find myself divided between idiocy and a complete lack of sense of humanity. Maybe it’s the sum of both.
In Europe like Canada to the best of my knowledge the public utility maintains the infrastructure up to your main.
Where do you think the funds for that come from?
If it leaks before where you get charged, it’s their problem and their pipes.
Yes and no. The money expended to install, maintain and repair those systems are raised either through indirect taxation, to then be transfered via a municipal or some other publi entity budget (which is a very bad practice), or by charging complementary fees directly added to the service, which are then directly managed by a publicly held company, that manages such services and is under public scrutiny.
In most of the USA, their responsibility ends at your property line.
Here, likewise. The service providers are required to make sure whatever is to be dispensed reaches the meter.
Utility companies are already all privatized, electric, gas, water, and sewer.
I am sadly aware of that.
If you have an issue with a leak or distribution, they will shut you off at the property line and let you figure it out.
In your house? Your problem. But shutting your service with no reason? That’s rich.
The added infrastructure cost for supplying water through 1 extra valve or not is paid for by the homeowner when the house was built.
You forget the cost to maintain the main lines. Whatever it is to be provided requires a way to reach the destination.
The labour to turn your water on and off is paid for at the time through fines and fees for disconnection and connection.
The labour costs are already calculates for the salaries. The extra fees and fines are extra income.
There is literally no cost that they bear for your lack of water.
The main lines need to be kept in working condition, even if unused. That costs money.
You’re missing the point that the meter is not the property line in the USA. At least I hope that’s the only thing your rambling is missing. And arguing semantics about taxation on a public service is stupid. It costs more money to staff the hotline to answer calls than the cost to maintain a shutoff valve to your property because all the costs are born to the homeowner and service subscriber already.
Incase it wasn’t clear, this is NOT true in almost everywhere else in the world. My properties outside the USA the utility must maintain to high standards all the way through my meter which is located on my property, but usually in my dwelling. All the subterranean pipe, the pipe through the foundation, the pressure regulator, the backflow valves, that’s all owned by the city and I can’t touch it. But I also don’t pay for it when it breaks. And when it leaks they dig the ground up and fix. That’s NOT how it works in the USA.
And, please take my word for, you do not want water, sewage or garbage collection controlled by private companies.
I’m glad I have the freedom to choose between one private water company and one private garbage collection company, and I hope my sewer system is soon given away to a faceless multinational and not paid directly to my local government.
Because I’m an American goddammit!
Your sewage system is already partially private. I can say this with confidence if you live anywhere on earth outside of maybe North Korea.
It’s a question of how much. Like my city for example: if you had a sewage emergency at night the people who show work for a private company. All the people working, part-time, there are pretty much retired government workers. Now is this a big deal? I personally don’t think so. The same company that services the night for my city has it for the neighboring ones. It just makes sense to have this be a part time job that spans a big area vs hire someone full-time to only work in one city.
Now who built your system? It was almost certainly a private company. That subcontracted it out to other private companies. Is this a big deal? Meh, it depends. I have seen incompetence in both government engineers/project managers and I have seen it in private sector as well.
Now who maintains your system? Well again it depends. Some special snowflake equipment you are going to have to call the OEM or their rep, day to day stuff the local government employees can usually handle.
I guess my point is your system is already partially private and I am not really convinced altering it more government or less government would add any additional benefit. We have a system that basically works.
When it comes to infrastructure, I don’t particularly mind the government contracting out maintenance. What I mind is the infrastructure not being owned publicly.
Hmm I have not personally seen that. Can you give me an example? The only thing I can think of is privately owned septic systems but I don’t think you meant that.
My sewer system is, thankfully, still owned by the municipality, and I pay my bills to them directly.
They sold off the water system to a French multi-national named Veolia for some reason, and I pay my bills to them now.
Oh ok. I haven’t heard of that happening. Sorry about that.
If the service is metered and public, it shouldn’t matter in my opinion. This is just municipal bullying.
You’re missing the point. When the state catches you being a decent human being, it is incumbent upon the state to crush you like a bug. What’s next? Feeding the hungry?!
What’s next? Feeding the hungry?!
No, that’s already been illegal in a lot of states/cities.
What’s next is shutting down shelters, ane arresting the homeless on sight and putting them in forced labor.
My parents are 80 years old and their car died in April, so I had to loan them mine, basically permanently, because the alternative is that they have no income at all.
The country that the Democrats and Republicans have built would be a-okay with letting them starve to death.
One third of Americans can’t drive, yet the American town is built as if everyone was a sentient automobile.
This makes me so angry that I have to decompress by giving away food to the unhomed in Bullhead City Arizona.
“Dehomed” is almost more appropriate for many without a home. Their homes were taken by resource hoarders using the tools of state.
“Dehomed” is such a better term than “homeless” or “unhoused”. First term I’ve heard that doesn’t put the blame on the person without a home.
Even “unhoused” is too neutral of a term for how people often end up without secure shelter.
Unhoused genuinely seems like a tip toe attempt to make saying homeless less ugly or like it’s a word to sidestep bs YouTube guidelines like unalive. It’s dumb. Not having a home sucks.
If I were to pick between the two then “dehomed” explains it better than “unhoused”. But “homeless” definitely defines what it feels like when it happens to you.
Wheel of euphemisms turn turn turn…
Tell us the terms that we should learn
Moral number four! If you’re poor, blame the rich.
