Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Water Charge Quotas

Options
1…468910

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    zenno wrote: »
    A whole new realisation of flushing animal faeces E.coli into the toilet. Sh!t into sh!t. It's all a load of sh!t. The country is gone to sh!t, sure a lot of folk wash in sh!t now with no choice. Ah sure, lets sprinkle it on our rice crispies ffs, sure why not it's only more sh!t. I'm sick of this sh!t, I'm out of here.

    I'm sick of all this shıt too.


    Let's go on the pıss.


  • Options
    #153
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    I'm in favour of water charges. The Tragedy of the Commons is a well established phenomenon and it absolutely applies to water usage. The quotas and fair usage limits are the key here though. The purpose of water charges should be to take some contribution to cover the cost of water provision as well as a punitive fee to punish negative externalities.
    The Tragedy of the commons is that they were enclosed by powerful land owners and the commoners were dispossessed. Commanage was a right only held by some people, not everyone. And if Fred had too many sheep the other rights holders would be upset with Fred and probably have a frank and honest discussion with him.


    The problem with water is that we already paid for it through indirect taxation. If this was like replacing the TV licence with an electric charge where the overall out lay hasn't gone up and you've cut out a middle man then at least there is some semblance of fairness.

    Remind us exactly how much businesses will have their rates cut by ?? And how much of that would get passed to the consumer, because they didn't pass the VAT reduction on.

    The numbers being floated around for average water costs are about the same as a weeks wages for someone on the minimum wage. (€375 - taxes , levies, transport). The "tragedy of the commons" is that someone with a lot of disposable income would pay exactly the same for the same usage.


  • Options
    #154
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    More water meter protests, this time in Dublin. I had to laugh at the placard that says... You can stick your water meters up your arse!

    Source: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/anti-water-meter-protests-spread-to-dublin-1.1771005


  • Options
    #155
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    The problem with water is that we already paid for it through indirect taxation. If this was like replacing the TV licence with an electric charge where the overall out lay hasn't gone up and you've cut out a middle man then at least there is some semblance of fairness.

    Remind us exactly how much businesses will have their rates cut by ?? And how much of that would get passed to the consumer, because they didn't pass the VAT reduction on.

    The numbers being floated around for average water costs are about the same as a weeks wages for someone on the minimum wage. (€375 - taxes , levies, transport). The "tragedy of the commons" is that someone with a lot of disposable income would pay exactly the same for the same usage.

    The costs associated with water provision are ongoing. The water system isn't "finished" and won't ever be.

    The point in moving from indirect taxation to direct taxation should be to reduce wastage at user level. This will undoubtedly do that. My own personal view is that standing charges shouldn't apply and that there should be decent allowance available free of charge.


  • Options
    #156
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭Busted Flat.


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    The costs associated with water provision are ongoing. The water system isn't "finished" and won't ever be.

    The point in moving from indirect taxation to direct taxation should be to reduce wastage at user level. This will undoubtedly do that. My own personal view is that standing charges shouldn't apply and that there should be decent allowance available free of charge.

    As big Phil pointed out if you do not use enough water to support the water board he will raise the rate to compensate. How is that going to save water ?.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Busted Flat. wrote: »
    As big Phil pointed out if you do not use enough water to support the water board he will raise the rate to compensate. How is that going to save water ?.

    Phil Hogan never said that.


  • Options
    #158
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭Busted Flat.


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Phil Hogan never said that.

    Check the bill he may not have said it but its in the bill, a reporter asked him a question about the water board finances. Sorry but I have no link, but if you are so sure you must have a copy of the bill.


  • Options
    #159
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Farmers are already out looking for Price reduction.

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/elections/farmers-demand-cut-in-water-charges-30209705.html


  • Options
    #160
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Busted Flat. wrote: »
    Check the bill he may not have said it but its in the bill, a reporter asked him a question about the water board finances. Sorry but I have no link, but if you are so sure you must have a copy of the bill.

    It isn't in any bill and Hogan didn't say it.


  • Options
    #161
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭Busted Flat.


    Phoebas wrote: »
    It isn't in any bill and Hogan didn't say it.


    This is my memory of the question. He was asked if the consumption of water did not meet its financial targets will there be a price hike, he answered there is provision in the bill for that. As I say that is from memory, maybe there is someone on Boards that seen him make that comment.
    Water consumption down = price hike, how does that conserve water, it only fills the pockets of the politically appointed Quango members.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    Just don't pay a cent for this, they cannot cut your water supply off for health and safety reasons.
    They would not cut you off as that would be a human rights issue. The only problem is, if they do take money directly (Illegally IMO) from your wages/pension then a person has to find a way to combat this in some way.


  • Options
    #163
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Busted Flat. wrote: »
    This is my memory of the question. He was asked if the consumption of water did not meet its financial targets will there be a price hike, he answered there is provision in the bill for that. As I say that is from memory, maybe there is someone on Boards that seen him make that comment.
    Water consumption down = price hike, how does that conserve water, it only fills the pockets of the politically appointed Quango members.

    Your memory is faulty perhaps?
    Why don't you read the bill or Google what you think Hogan is reported to have said?

    From my own, often faulty, memory, there was some speculation (not from Hogan) about the possibility of price increases if consumption was too low to meet the funding targets. This seems to have been replaced in recent times by other speculation that there would be a standing charge instead. Its all speculation, because this is a matter for the CER, not the minister, and they haven't come to a decision yet.


  • Options
    #164
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    zenno wrote: »
    Just don't pay a cent for this, they cannot cut your water supply off for health and safety reasons.
    They would not cut you off as that would be a human rights issue. The only problem is, if they do take money directly (Illegally IMO) from your wages/pension then a person has to find a way to combat this in some way.

    They can reduce it to a trickle which, if memory serves me correctly, is what they have said they would do.


  • Options
    #165
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    Phoebas wrote: »
    They can reduce it to a trickle which, if memory serves me correctly, is what they have said they would do.

    Well not really, because I have studied these particular water meters, and how they work.

    All you have to do is purchase a small copper pipe and connect it to each part of where the meter is connected, take out the meter and screw in the new pipe for the main connection, very simple really and you have your supply back full.

    I am not telling folk to do this, but this is what I would do, or will do if it comes to it.

    Then I'd just sell the water meter on E-Bay . They won't be clamping my water supply.


  • Options
    #166
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    zenno wrote: »
    Well not really, because I have studied these particular water meters, and how they work.

    All you have to do is purchase a small copper pipe and connect it to each part of where the meter is connected, take out the meter and screw in the new pipe for the main connection, very simple really and you have your supply back full.

    I am not telling folk to do this, but this is what I would do, or will do if it comes to it.

    No doubt its possible to tamper with the meter. I'm not sure, but since the meter is the property of Irish Water, that would probably be an offence.


  • Options
    #167
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    Phoebas wrote: »
    No doubt its possible to tamper with the meter. I'm not sure, but since the meter is the property of Irish Water, that would probably be an offence.

    EDIT: It is an offence in my eye's to force a person to pay for something they already pay for.


  • Options
    #168
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    zenno wrote: »
    It is an offence in my eye's to force me to pay for something I already pay for.

    Yeah, but that offence isn't backed by the rule of law.


  • Options
    #169
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Yeah, but that offence isn't backed by the rule of law.

    Yes, but the rule of an unjust law.


  • Options
    #170
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭Busted Flat.


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Yeah, but that offence isn't backed by the rule of law.

    There is quiet a few staff in the water quango on over €100,000 a year plus expenses. Nice number, if your in the circle. Just an observation.


  • Options
    #171
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    @Journal.ie
    Domestic water charges will apply from October of this year, with the first bills to be issued in January 2015.
    It’s planned customers with a meter will be charged on the basis of use while those without a meter will receive an estimated bill.

    How can they give an estimated bill when not knowing the water usage being used, this is crazy. They are just making stuff up as they go, they haven't a clue, they are taking the piss on a big-time scale.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    zenno wrote: »
    @Journal.ie



    How can they give an estimated bill when not knowing the water usage being used, this is crazy. They are just making stuff up as they go, they haven't a clue, they are taking the piss on a big-time scale.

    Will they be using the census to calculate how many people in apartments for example and not charge a 6 person family the same as a 2 person one.


  • Options
    #173
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    zenno wrote: »
    @Journal.ie



    How can they give an estimated bill when not knowing the water usage being used, this is crazy. They are just making stuff up as they go, they haven't a clue, they are taking the piss on a big-time scale.

    If they knew what the actual usage was then they wouldn't have to issue an estimated bill, would they?
    They will have the benefit of having hundreds of thousands of actual readings to go on, so the estimated usage should be reasonably accurate.


  • Options
    #174
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    zenno wrote: »
    @Journal.ie



    How can they give an estimated bill when not knowing the water usage being used, this is crazy. They are just making stuff up as they go, they haven't a clue, they are taking the piss on a big-time scale.

    Couldn't even make it up tbh. I pray to fcuk the public have woken up and seen the ineptitude of this Govt.

    They are in for one hell of a bloody nose in the locals. Still haven't seen an FG councillor at my front door yet, plenty of leaflets and posters. I've had a visit from a labour member (the councillor himself) but that's it so far.

    I'm almost praying for a visit at this stage.


  • Options
    #175
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭Busted Flat.


    Phoebas wrote: »
    If they knew what the actual usage was then they wouldn't have to issue an estimated bill, would they?
    They will have the benefit of having hundreds of thousands of actual readings to go on, so the estimated usage should be reasonably accurate.

    What planet are you on, trusting that lot,we were promised honesty and transparency, did we get either ?. and now you are expecting accuracy, there is no hope for this country.


  • Options
    #176
    emo72
    Registered Users Posts: 6,226 ✭✭✭emo72


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Yeah, but that offence isn't backed by the rule of law.

    hi phoebas, do you work for the water company, or perhaps employed by the government?


  • Options
    #177
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    Phoebas wrote: »
    If they knew what the actual usage was then they wouldn't have to issue an estimated bill, would they?
    They will have the benefit of having hundreds of thousands of actual readings to go on, so the estimated usage should be reasonably accurate.

    It's just an inaccurate way of doing it, and is a mickey mouse way to charge folk on an unstable platform of estimation.

    As was said before, you could have 5/6 people living in a home with no meter using way more water, and then you have 1 person living alone paying the same as this lot, so much for estimation.


  • Options
    #178
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    Busted Flat. wrote: »
    What planet are you on, trusting that lot,we were promised honesty and transparency, did we get either ?. and now you are expecting accuracy, there is no hope for this country.

    This is my point exactly.


  • Options
    #179
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Phoebas wrote: »
    If they knew what the actual usage was then they wouldn't have to issue an estimated bill, would they?
    They will have the benefit of having hundreds of thousands of actual readings to go on, so the estimated usage should be reasonably accurate.

    How will they know if they undercharged or overcharged a house without an actual meter reading to compare?

    What if a home owner has not been living in his house for 6 months/a year (therefore not using any water)? How can you estimate his 'no usage' without a meter?

    What if a home is selling bottled water from a tap thousands of litres per week, ala Del boy and Rodney,?


  • Options
    #180
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    zenno wrote: »
    It's just an inaccurate way of doing it, and is a mickey mouse way to charge folk on an unstable platform of estimation.

    What more accurate way would you propose they charge people who don't have water meters?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    13505
    Registered Users Posts: 15 ✭13505


    I find water charges a repulsive thought. Tax anything you want, you meddling Michaels and I'll probably pay it, for the good of society. But stay the f*ck away from water! You sick, abhorent Angelas!

    Anything but the one substance that keeps us and everything that's ever been alive. You disgusting Declans! Free water for all beings. Tax everything else if you want, but not water you sick simmering slugheads!!!


Advertisement