Toilet of the future.
Householders to be charged for each flush of toilet | PerthNow — We will eventually be taxed for breathing.
HOUSEHOLDERS would be charged for each flush under a radical new toilet tax designed to help beat the drought [in Perth]
The scheme would replace the current system, which sees sewage charges based on a home’s value – not its waste water output.
CSIRO Policy and Economic Research Unit member Jim McColl and Adelaide University Water Management Professor Mike Young plan to promote the move to state and federal politicians and experts across the country.
“We will eventually be taxed for breathing.”
1. Or fined for polluting the atmosphere. Don’t forget that the CO2 we exhale is now classed as a pollutant.
2. Heinlein mentioned “air licenses” aboard populated space stations. In at least one of his SF novels (“The Cat Who Walked Through Walls”), if you didn’t pay up, you were sent “dirtside”.
California should follow lead and charge a tax for every fart.
Cali’s going down…
(Seriously, John, how bad is the economy over there?)
Everyone drink the Kool-Aid and repeat after me: Greater good…. Greater good…. Greater good…. Greater good…….
Taxing people based upon their household value is a stupid policy; it does nothing to encourage conservation. As much as I would prefer to see basic per-gallon water charges raised rather than some sort of taxing scheme, this is bound to be more effective and more fair than the previous policy.
In my area, we have always paid a sewage fee based on water use.
If you want to sprinkle your lawn, you get a separate meter.
Reminds me of a monty python skit… guess they will want to tax “thingy” next.
Neat idea. So the single guy, living in a costly mansion and pees in the backyard, because he “eccentric” and is saving on his water bill, NOW gets charged less, than the large poor family living in the trailer park, with eight kids. Yeah, these reassessed tax plans always seem to benefit the rich. And penalize the poor. And who do want to bet lobbied for this? Certainly NOT the poor. Meanwhile the water hogging Country Clubs don’t get penalized for keeping their courses green, during Perth’s drought.
Um, I guess just charging them for the amount of water they use would be to simple.
Pay for usage is SO last century! Make people who don’t use the sewer pay! My county government through corruption and incompetence racked up $3.2 billion in bond debt on a $1 billion sewer project.
One solution? People that aren’t hooked up to the sewer but could be may pay a $30/mo “non-user” fee. People that can’t be hooked up may pay a $20/mo “clean water” fee.
We will pay for -NOT- using the system.
Interested? Look up Jefferson County, Alabama in Wikipedia.
That’s a load of crap.
But if we all stopped breathing, think of all
of the CO2 that will be eliminated. That tax is
self defeating.
#30 Breathing in is OK, is the exhaling that should be banned.
I am betting vegetarians have to flush more.
#4 #8 EXACTLY people should be charged (and they ARE) for water usage, not what the water is used FOR. I cannot understand people finding this acceptable.
A toilet flush is a burden on the public utility.
A watering of the front lawn is not.
There is a logical and practical additional burden regarding toilets not present in other water use activities.
You can still disagree about a discrete charge, as reasonable people will.
#34: “A toilet flush is a burden on the public utility.
A watering of the front lawn is not.”
Guess again. My town is looking into fees for runoff from properties, such as soap from washing you car, pet waste, insecticide use, and lawn fertilizer. All go into the storm drain system and allegedly cause environmental harm because they don’t get treated by the sanitary sewer system.
#35–oven==watering the front lawn is again different from OVERWATERING the front lawn causing runoff, a type of toilet usage if you will.
Again==there is definitely and factually a difference between the simply receipt of water and what you do with it thereafter==all justifying additional charges as the authority may decide.
Simple economics really.
Amusing how many people can’t think rationally if two sentences contain the same word, there must be a equivalency thereafter no matter what else is being discussed?
Water, water everywhere. Not a drop to drink.