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

more irish water nonsense

Options
123578

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    It's nothing to do with conservation.

    I know I'll be taking extra water conservation measures.
    I'd be pretty confident that hundreds of thousands of water consumers will take extra conservation measures when the bills start hitting the doormats.


  • Options
    #123
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    Phoebas wrote: »
    I know I'll be taking extra water conservation measures.
    I'd be pretty confident that hundreds of thousands of water consumers will take extra conservation measures when the bills start hitting the doormats.

    No, but this one guy who isn't metered is going to have his shower and taps running all day and is going to be repeatedly flushing his toilets for some reason so it's all stupid and doesn't matter.


  • Options
    #124
    Glebee
    Registered Users Posts: 6,618 ✭✭✭Glebee


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    But the government has already said if they cannot raise enough money they will put up the price of water. So everyone saving water will have a disastrous effect. It's nothing to do with conservation.


    Bang on.. The fact they have already come out and said this, is enough to turn me off the idea. Say for example everbody conserveses water to avoid big bills and government does not raise enough money, so unit price increases. Sounds like were screwed to me..


  • Options
    #125
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Banjo String wrote: »
    So why aren't Irish Water calling the 'application pack' a contract, if that's what it actually Is, what are they worried about
    Because it's not a contract in the truest sense. It's a demand for information under the water service act 2007. That's not a very nice title though, so of course they're going to call them "application packs". But you can be sure those legal terms will indeed be included in it.
    What happens if you refuse to engage with them, if you refuse to sign a contract, what powers have they to charge you, and if your unmetered, how will they reduce your pressure?
    They have the power to prosecute you for failure to supply information (fine up to €5k) or for providing false information (up to €5k + 3 months in prison) under the Water Services Act, 2007.
    I don't no how a company you're not a customer of can demand payment from you for their services you never requested.
    Contract law doesn't require that a formal contract ever exists for a debt to be owed.
    If you're aware that your are in receipt of a service for which a charge exists, then you are liable for the cost of that service, whether or not a formal contract exists between you and the service provider.

    Think of it this way - you move into a house where the electricity is active. Do you think that so long as you don't contact a service provider to "request" their service, that your electricity is free? Of course not.

    By using water, you are in effect "requesting" that service, and so you are liable to pay for it. By being connected to public supply it can be safely assumed that you are using the water and therefore are liable to pay for it, whether that's metered or not.


  • Options
    #126
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    But the government has already said if they cannot raise enough money they will put up the price of water. So everyone saving water will have a disastrous effect. It's nothing to do with conservation.

    What disastrous effect? Everyone will save water. Price will go up. People will save more water. Result.

    For example, if I need to water my garden, I do it with tap water. If I need to wash my car, I use tap water. There is no reason in the world why I need to use drinking-quality treated water for these jobs, but hey, it's free!

    I could hook up a water-butt to a downpipe and store rainwater for jobs like these, but that would cost money and take some work. Why would I, if water is free (or, if you like, paid for invisibly through general taxation).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Rubberchikken
    Registered Users Posts: 5,083 ✭✭✭Rubberchikken


    it doesn't matter how much or how little water is used, the charge for unit will increase whenever there's a budget or whenever the govt see that more revenue is needed.

    then someday they'd get totally fedup of the whole thing and sell it off, and then we'll have the same system they have in UK.


  • Options
    #128
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    mickydoomsux wrote: »
    No, but this one guy who isn't metered is going to have his shower and taps running all day and is going to be repeatedly flushing his toilets for some reason so it's all stupid and doesn't matter.

    What's stopping them doing that ? :pac:


  • Options
    #129
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,458 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    What's stopping them doing that ? :pac:

    Common sense would stop 99.9% of the population.


  • Options
    #130
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,802 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    What disastrous effect? Everyone will save water. Price will go up. People will save more water. Result.

    For example, if I need to water my garden, I do it with tap water. If I need to wash my car, I use tap water. There is no reason in the world why I need to use drinking-quality treated water for these jobs, but hey, it's free!

    I could hook up a water-butt to a downpipe and store rainwater for jobs like these, but that would cost money and take some work. Why would I, if water is free (or, if you like, paid for invisibly through general taxation).

    Its a blatant lie that its about conservation if they freely admit when people start conserving water instead of being rewarded for being good little boys and girls we will instead be punished by having prices raised so conserving water in an effort to reduce how much we pay for it will have no effect on our bills whatsoever


  • Options
    #131
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Phoebas wrote: »
    And there I was almost thinking that IW is a private company. ;)

    Set up and 100% owned by...........


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    What's stopping them doing that ? :pac:

    Not being a belligerent fool with nothing better to do with their life?


  • Options
    #133
    db
    Registered Users Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭db


    Phoebas wrote: »
    When people say 'free' they mean 'free at the point of access'. Its clear to everyone that water was being paid for.

    Many thousands of people who provided their own water and wastewater treatment were also contributing through the tax system to the public system. There weren't too many people starting threads on boards complaining about double taxation or stealth taxes until they were asked to contribute directly.

    If you build a house and connect to the public water and sewers you pay a development charge to the council for these services to be provided. If you provide your own well and septic tank you pay a much reduced development charge because you are not availing of the public services. This is balanced out by the cost of providing your own services.

    Up until now the ongoing supply of water and treatment of sewerage has been paid for out of general taxation. As someone who provides their own water and waste services I also pay for this with my taxes but I don't mind because I receive other public services that someone who lives in a city might not. I also pay for the public lighting in cities and towns through my taxes - should I complain about that? That's what a tax system is - we all pay into it to provide public services.

    Where people get annoyed is when a public service is separated out from the general tax system and a new charge is levied by either a public or private body without a balancing reduction in general tax. Usually this new process brings with it huge additional costs that would not have been required if the old system continued. How many hundreds of millions has it cost to setup Irish Water - installation of meters, new staff costs, continuing to pay excess ex-council staff, IT systems for HR, Customers, Billing etc.

    I would be very interested to know how much of the money raised from water charges will actually go into the direct provision and improvement of the service and how much will be be needed to pay for the organisation behind it.

    How many other services previously paid for out of general tax are now being charged for separately - bins, parking, education (voluntary contributions) any others? How many other services remain that the government might target in the future?


  • Options
    #134
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    db wrote: »
    If you build a house and connect to the public water and sewers you pay a development charge to the council for these services to be provided. If you provide your own well and septic tank you pay a much reduced development charge because you are not availing of the public services. This is balanced out by the cost of providing your own services.

    Up until now the ongoing supply of water and treatment of sewerage has been paid for out of general taxation. As someone who provides their own water and waste services I also pay for this with my taxes but I don't mind because I receive other public services that someone who lives in a city might not. I also pay for the public lighting in cities and towns through my taxes - should I complain about that? That's what a tax system is - we all pay into it to provide public services.

    Where people get annoyed is when a public service is separated out from the general tax system and a new charge is levied by either a public or private body without a balancing reduction in general tax. Usually this new process brings with it huge additional costs that would not have been required if the old system continued. How many hundreds of millions has it cost to setup Irish Water - installation of meters, new staff costs, continuing to pay excess ex-council staff, IT systems for HR, Customers, Billing etc.

    I would be very interested to know how much of the money raised from water charges will actually go into the direct provision and improvement of the service and how much will be be needed to pay for the organisation behind it.

    How many other services previously paid for out of general tax are now being charged for separately - bins, parking, education (voluntary contributions) any others? How many other services remain that the government might target in the future?
    I think the idea is that there are some once off setup charges with savings over time e.g. they are taking on all of the LA staff that currently provide the service, but will reduce the numbers over time as economies of scale are generated. Obviously, we'd want this to happen faster than it is happening, but I'm constantly surprised by people who complain about the high initial costs but want to retain the high cost status quo.
    There was virtually no public debate in this country about the cost of or the state of water services until direct charges came along.

    I personally prefer to have separate charges for most of these utility type services rather than have the high costs hidden in departmental or LA budgets.


  • Options
    #135
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    db wrote: »
    Where people get annoyed is when a public service is separated out from the general tax system and a new charge is levied by either a public or private body without a balancing reduction in general tax.
    And this is because people in general seem to have difficulty understanding simple sums. When you don't bring in enough tax to pay for stuff, then you need to do something.

    You can either have Irish Water, or you can have an increase in your general taxation to cover the cost of providing water. I think most people would agree that a "user pays" system for the majority of services is the fairest way to go about it. After all, I don't want to have to pay the cost of supplying water to a guy with 12 kids.

    If we had enough money in general taxation to pay for these things, this wouldn't be an issue.

    Some idiots seem to be under the impression that we bring in enough tax, this is just an excuse to grab money.


  • Options
    #136
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Banjo String wrote: »
    Set up and 100% owned by...........
    You're almost there Banjo.


  • Options
    #137
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    seamus wrote: »
    And this is because people in general seem to have difficulty understanding simple sums. When you don't bring in enough tax to pay for stuff, then you need to do something.

    You can either have Irish Water, or you can have an increase in your general taxation to cover the cost of providing water. I think most people would agree that a "user pays" system for the majority of services is the fairest way to go about it. After all, I don't want to have to pay the cost of supplying water to a guy with 12 kids.

    If we had enough money in general taxation to pay for these things, this wouldn't be an issue.

    Some idiots seem to be under the impression that we bring in enough tax, this is just an excuse to grab money.

    I'm sorry I have every right to question how a for profit company is run. I will be paying my water charge. Are we not allowed to ask how and where the money generated will be used and spent. Or would you be quite happy to stump up the cash for gold plated pensions and wages ? Has any breakdown been done on funding and provisions for a budget for the maintenance of the system. Or is it wink wink lads don't worry we will look after it.


  • Options
    #138
    twinytwo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,193 ✭✭✭twinytwo


    MYOB wrote: »
    Which isn't going to happen

    oh you bet your ass it will be... they will run it for a 2/3 years then sell it off.


  • Options
    #139
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    twinytwo wrote: »
    oh you bet your ass it will be... they will run it for a 2/3 years then sell it off.

    That is my biggest worry, Sold off and then run barely ticking over with greater and greater price increases to cream profits.


  • Options
    #140
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    I'm sorry I have every right to question how a for profit company is run.
    I never said otherwise.


  • Options
    #141
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Its a blatant lie that its about conservation if they freely admit when people start conserving water instead of being rewarded for being good little boys and girls we will instead be punished by having prices raised so conserving water in an effort to reduce how much we pay for it will have no effect on our bills whatsoever

    Wrong.

    Here's the two of us, both using 100,000 litres of water per year.

    Charging is introduced, and we both pay €300. I say crap, and cut my usage to 50,000 litres. You say "this is a stealth tax unrelated to conservation, so I will take no action" and use 100,000 litres again.

    IW need to collect €600, but this time you used twice as much water as me, so they charge me €200 and you €400. Rates per litre have gone up, but I conserved and saved money, so I am happier.

    Next year, you cut your usage to 50,000, too, and both of us get charged 300 again. Now I give out that rates have gone up, but you have saved €100, and are happier.

    Our bills are back where they started, but only half as much water is used. Conservation!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Wrong.

    Here's the two of us, both using 100,000 litres of water per year.

    Charging is introduced, and we both pay €300. I say crap, and cut my usage to 50,000 litres. You say "this is a stealth tax unrelated to conservation, so I will take no action" and use 100,000 litres again.

    IW need to collect €600, but this time you used twice as much water as me, so they charge me €200 and you €400. Rates per litre have gone up, but I conserved and saved money, so I am happier.

    Next year, you cut your usage to 50,000, too, and both of us get charged 300 again. Now I give out that rates have gone up, but you have saved €100, and are happier.

    Our bills are back where they started, but only half as much water is used. Conservation!

    That's all well and good, But it's done on Average on unmetered property.


  • Options
    #143
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    seamus wrote: »
    And this is because people in general seem to have difficulty understanding simple sums. When you don't bring in enough tax to pay for stuff, then you need to do something.

    You can either have Irish Water, or you can have an increase in your general taxation to cover the cost of providing water. I think most people would agree that a "user pays" system for the majority of services is the fairest way to go about it. After all, I don't want to have to pay the cost of supplying water to a guy with 12 kids.

    If we had enough money in general taxation to pay for these things, this wouldn't be an issue.

    Some idiots seem to be under the impression that we bring in enough tax, this is just an excuse to grab money.

    That bit there is my main gripe. Ive been conserving water for years. have water tanks set up all round my place, shower outdoors from them in the summer, follow the 'If its yellow let it mellow, If its brown flush it down" rule etc etc yet Im probably going to pay a estimated/standard charge for a year or two til these ejits sort them selves out. And what ever happened to the 'You will be penalised if you dont use enough' bull. Is that still a possibility?


  • Options
    #144
    donegal__road
    Closed Accounts Posts: 953 ✭✭✭donegal__road


    OP Im afraid this thread is following the same pattern as countless other such threads..

    everyone seems to be in agreement for the first 10 posts, then a member of Young FG spots the discussion and messages his/her buddies on the Young FG Facebook page.. then they all log in to boards and try to defend the indefensible.

    now you are only giving yourself blood pressure reading their posts.







    .


  • Options
    #145
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,458 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    donegal__road wrote: »
    OP Im afraid this thread is following the same pattern as countless other such threads..

    everyone seems to be in agreement for the first 10 posts, then a member of Young FG spots the discussion and messages his/her buddies on the Young FG Facebook page..

    now you are only giving yourself blood pressure reading their opinions.

    LMAO :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #146
    db
    Registered Users Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭db


    Phoebas wrote: »
    I think the idea is that there are some once off setup charges with savings over time e.g. they are taking on all of the LA staff that currently provide the service, but will reduce the numbers over time as economies of scale are generated. Obviously, we'd want this to happen faster than it is happening, but I'm constantly surprised by people who complain about the high initial costs but want to retain the high cost status quo.
    There was virtually no public debate in this country about the cost of or the state of water services until direct charges came along.

    I personally prefer to have separate charges for most of these utility type services rather than have the high costs hidden in departmental or LA budgets.

    None of the staff moving over from local authorities will be let go until after they retire or decide to leave themselves. After that their pensions will have to be paid for so I struggle to see where any huge savings will be made. If this was a number of private companies merging there would be staff reductions and this would generate savings. Do you really think you will be paying less in future for water than you are now through your general taxes? Remember that there are no plans to reduce general tax to compensate for water charges. According to Simon Coveney it currently costs €1.5bn to run the water system. It will be interesting to see what the cost will be in 5 years time.


  • Options
    #147
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,150 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    twinytwo wrote: »
    oh you bet your ass it will be... they will run it for a 2/3 years then sell it off.

    Not a chance. Standard scare story being perpetrated and nothing else.

    UK is one of the only places that's done that and they've sold everything that's not nailed down. We haven't.


  • Options
    #148
    donegal__road
    Closed Accounts Posts: 953 ✭✭✭donegal__road


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    LMAO :rolleyes:

    Laugh all you want, that is what used to happen when the other shower were in government.

    Workers at our local TD's office were told to check 3 sites at regular intervals during the day, RIP.ie (in case someone passed away and the TD needed to rush to the funeral and shake a few hands).... Politics.ie and boards.ie, for obvious reasons.


  • Options
    #149
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    And what ever happened to the 'You will be penalised if you dont use enough' bull. Is that still a possibility?

    I'm assuming at some stage Irish Water will have to bring in a standing charge. If they don't then water rates will go up (while the politics side will still have people wanting their "free" allowance)


  • Options
    #150
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    donegal__road wrote: »
    OP Im afraid this thread is following the same pattern as countless other such threads..

    There's a pattern in play alright.
    You come along, drop in some off topic nonsense, don't engage in the substantive debate and then feck off again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,458 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    donegal__road wrote: »
    Laugh all you want, that is what used to happen when the other shower were in government.

    Workers at our local TD's office were told to check 3 sites at regular intervals during the day, RIP.ie (in case someone passed away and the TD needed to rush to the funeral and shake a few hands).... Politics.ie and boards.ie, for obvious reasons.

    ok ;)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement