Water charges

Fr. Ned

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so why is it so different to electricity or gas supply?

Because we don't already pay for those through our general taxation.

Fr. Ned

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

We have been getting it for free for years,

No we haven't.
Cop on to yourself.

For Reals

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

We have been getting it for free for years, for the last number of decades up to the current crisis ,Ireland seen its tax base reduced and a constant lowering of personal taxes, yet time again we have the socialist refrain whenever we are asked to pay for anything that it is "Double Taxation".
The simple fact is that even when you strip out the cost of the banking debacle there is and was a substantial gap in the cost to the state in providing services, and the contribution of those who reside in the state through taxation.

It's Right Wing Capitalist folk who believe in getting things for free. The days of that socialist stereotype are gone. It's the private business concern expecting freebies or special treatment.
There's a contradiction there. On the one hand you say we've been getting water supplied for free, yet on the other hand you're saying we need this new set up due to lower tax revenue.
So we were in fact funding it through taxation, but now we need more tax, but in an effort to squeeze out as much as possible and gag those who believe we're getting ****ed, they'll claim we've been getting free water all these years, because that way the idea of paying for water will pass easier than the reality of just a plain old increase or double tax.
Its smoke and mirrors. Why not just increase taxes? Why spend all this money on an expensive ruse? Is it because we'll be selling it all off in about ten years? I can't see any other reasoning. Why not just raise the taxes we already pay and leave the already being paid councils etc. to carry it out?

What really pisses me off is its taxpayer money funds these flights of fancy. Then infrastructure, funded by the taxpayer is sold off, then we are left dealing with private companies having lost ownership. And its people who think they are being forward thinking and ever so smart by backing this 'progress' who are the bigger fools.

By the way 'Double tax' isn't a dirty or foolish term as people of your mindset would like to paint it. How else do you describe being taxed for the same thing twice? And the reason why its generally social leaning people is because right wing people barely pay tax once, so they've no need for it in their vocabulary.

Fr. Ned

For Reals wrote: »

Why not just raise the taxes we already pay and leave the already being paid councils etc. to carry it out?

Because then the friends of FG wouldn't benefit from high paid jobs in a state quango, wouldn't get lucrative water meter contracts and that €50 million wouldn't have gone to consultants who are in the know.

It's a scam of the highest order and at the PAC tomorrow they will give the people of Ireland the two fingers and we will do nothing about it.

jmayo

Akrasia wrote: »

What will happen is there will be a 'service charge' to have a connection to the water supply and this will come with a certain allowance of units of water
If you go above this allowance, you will get charged per unit

That's what I thought.
Only question is how is the allowance arrived at ?
Is it stabdard across the board or is based on occupants ?
Will it vary across counties, buroughs, etc ?

Akrasia wrote: »

The problem is if everyone becomes more efficient and uses less water than the water company expects us to, they'll increase the service charge to cover the shortfall in revenue.

So will they increase the service charge to all or just those using less ?

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

No we are not, general taxation does not meet the bills for the freebies that the people of this state want.
I can think of no good reason why consumers should not be charged for using treated supplied to them or for having their waste water treated.

Except this is Ireland and as Luke Ming Flanagan so colourfully illustrated in the Dáil, are people receiving "p*ss" as their water meant to pay the same as someone receiving perfectly good drinking water ?

And as he mentioned can Irish Water be done under trade descriptions act ?
Or are they immune from this law much like they are immune from outside investigation ?

Colm R

Colm R wrote: »

You have, for me touched on a key difference between water and other utilities, such as electricity and gas - in the case of the latter two, you can't really get bad electricity or gas - it either works or doesn't, and when it does not, you don't pay for it.

Water, obviously is different, and quality can vary.

Leaving out the debate about consultant fees, privitization and everything that`is in the newspapers, I personally agree with the principle that users should be charged for water.

However, as a consequence of the very vocal anti-charges side, versus the very often obnoxious pro-charges (government side), everyone is missing one key thing - there should be an SLA (Service Level Agreement) whereby water provided to household should be only charged if said water passes a test - carried out by a regulator as opposed to the company providing the water.

In so doing, people throughout the country, who unfortunately find themselves having to pay for boiling water or purchasing bottled water will be in exactly the same position they are now, until such a time as the owners of the system can deliver drinkable water to their home.

Quality and cost should be what's being discussed, unfortunately the only vocal opposition seems to be "No, we shouldn't pay".

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes, seriously, in the same way that using solar energy or wind or any other renewable resource is not a big deal. Moreover, south county Dublin has been using the same reservoir for well over half a century; rarely experiencing shortages of any kind (and the shortages were almost never due to exhausting the reservoir's reserves.) There are almost no negative impacts from the usage of water (unlike, for instance, the usage of fossil fuels). Although there is a cost for water treatment, that is limited only by infrastructure and budget.

Levels are getting towards critical for a lot of Dublin at this stage and the population is still increasing.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Because we don't already pay for those through our general taxation.

We don't pay for water either, general taxation falls far short of spending.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

jmayo wrote: »

And as he mentioned can Irish Water be done under trade descriptions act ?
Or are they immune from this law much like they are immune from outside investigation ?

There is no such law as the trades description act on the Irish Statute book.

Fr. Ned

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

We don't pay for water either, general taxation falls far short of spending.

Who paid for water services up until now?

For Reals

Deleted User wrote: »

Quality and cost should be what's being discussed, unfortunately the only vocal opposition seems to be "No, we shouldn't pay".


Levels are getting towards critical for a lot of Dublin at this stage and the population is still increasing.

You're dismissing those who don't see it as a fair charge given the fact that many believe its a double tax. Discussing the various criteria of the working structure steps over those opposed to the whole set up, the idea of such a thing. That's why people are saying we shouldn't pay, not because they're missing any elements of the debate. Not that we're allowed a debate.

For Reals

For Reals wrote: »

You're dismissing those who don't see it as a fair charge given the fact that many believe its a double tax. Discussing the various criteria of the working structure steps over those opposed to the whole set up, the idea of such a thing. That's why people are saying we shouldn't pay, not because they're missing any elements of the debate. Not that we're allowed a debate.

I'm dismissing them (not really, but I'll go along with it) because the charges are going to come in either way. I would prefer if the opposition was productive and evaluated issues with the charges as they come in rather than the pointless "We shouldn't pay" argument.

jmayo

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

There is no such law as the trades description act on the Irish Statute book.

Ok Mr Pedantic, the Consumer Information Act of 1978 which in Section 2 specifically mentions the definition of “trade description" and Section 4 discusses the "Provision in relation to application and use of trade descriptions".

I think most people know what I was getting at, even if I did allude to the act incorrectly as named in the UK's 1968 Trade Descriptions Act.

Either way I believe that if someone provides you with goods or services there is an implied fitness for purpose attached, is there not ?

Providing p1ss poor water full of cryptosporidium is hardly a service fit for purpose and hardly billable.
No wonder Luke Ming Flanagan has concerns as illustrated in the Dail, it is perfectly valid since 5 people fell ill in his consitutuency last summer last to an outbreak in one of the water supplies.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/five-people-fall-ill-after-cryptosporidium-outbreak-in-roscommon-29697690.html

vicwatson

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Who paid for water services up until now?

I paid €1,000.00 for a water softener as the council won't soften the water at source, does that count??

I also pay €60 per annum for salt for this softener plus electricty cost to run it

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Who paid for water services up until now?

Business users through rates and the state through borrowing.

creedp

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Business users through rates and the state through borrowing.

So water provision is funded through borrowing and not taxation? What pray tell is then funded through taxation? Any chance of a breakdown of Govt expenditure funded through taxation and borrowing? It would be simple then to remove the deficit - cut out all expenditure funded through borrowing. Presumably though tax breaks and public contracts for the well connected are fully protected as they must be funded through tax revenues.

antoobrien

creedp wrote: »

So water provision is funded through borrowing and not taxation?

Water provision in Galway City is budgeted from commercial water rates. If (probably when) there's a shortfall then one would presume that it's taken up from motor tax (only 1/3 of which can be used on roads)

Godge

Colm R wrote: »

You have, for me touched on a key difference between water and other utilities, such as electricity and gas - in the case of the latter two, you can't really get bad electricity or gas - it either works or doesn't, and when it does not, you don't pay for it.

Water, obviously is different, and quality can vary.

Not exactly an exact comparison.

Many parts of the country have no connection to the gas supply, some isolated rural areas have no electricity supply.

There are disruptions to the electricity service from time to time. Let me tell you, when the water pressure is low you can store and hoard it, when the electricity is gone, it is gone.

Colm R

Godge wrote: »

Not exactly an exact comparison.

Many parts of the country have no connection to the gas supply, some isolated rural areas have no electricity supply.

There are disruptions to the electricity service from time to time. Let me tell you, when the water pressure is low you can store and hoard it, when the electricity is gone, it is gone.

There can't be an exact comparison. The utilities are different by their very nature.

Although, while much of the country does not have a gas connection, a home without access to electricity is extremely rare.

Its also worth noting that most rural areas, isolated and not so isolated do not have access the public water, and hence have free access to huge quantities of water under their properties.

Well, free to the extent that its there, and they can take it.

Not so free to the extent that it costs a small fortune in the first instance to get to it and running costs are also considerable.

jmayo

Godge wrote: »

Not exactly an exact comparison.

Many parts of the country have no connection to the gas supply, some isolated rural areas have no electricity supply.

There are disruptions to the electricity service from time to time. Let me tell you, when the water pressure is low you can store and hoard it, when the electricity is gone, it is gone.

The thing is if you lose gas you might feel the cold or not be able to cook.
If the gas provision is or poor quality you might have difficulty running devices or they may degrate quicker.
If you lose electricity you are in the dark with all that entails in today's society.
If electricity supply is poor then you cannot power certain devices.

But if you water supply is poor quality then you can end up in hospital and if you are the very young, the very old or already suffering from a health condition that can be very serious indeed.

Do the powers that be expect people to pay for the provision of cryptosporidium ?
Are there measures in place to not charge or to recompense people who have paid whose water quality is frankly to a third world standard ?

Mr.Micro

The water authority is being born and already causing trouble. It is acting at present like its a corporate animal, accountable to itself and it's executives. Looks to me like jobs for the boys......again.


It may well prove to be an outfit that provides a water service badly, but on a bigger scale. Just 4 of the 9 strong management were externally recruited. So what's all the consultancy money for then, since many if these people are supposed to know the drill already? I even heard bonuses mentioned on the lunchtime news. It has not even got going yet and bonuses already in the offing. Unbelievable.


http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0115/497912-hogan-irish-water/


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-water-staff-recruited-from-local-authorities-29884527.html

_Kaiser_

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I even heard bonuses mentioned on the lunchtime news. It has not even got going yet and bonuses already in the offing. Unbelievable.

Sure why wouldn't there be - they've managed to work it so that if you don't use enough of their product they can hike the charges, and if you don't use it at all you'll STILL have to pay

It's win-win for them. For the rest it's another tax hike

randomperson12

i noticed that the goverment are very busy with this water stuff and still havent arested anglo irish bank ppl thats what the abortion and the g.y marrige thing where set up for ..... no offense to those ppl..... but thats what there trying to avoid there getting paid by the like of fiskgerald big money to shut up about locking them up they should be made worked in labour on the roads filling potholes and farm relief during storms

emo72

A "spring rising" for the western world? Anyone? has to start somewhere:pac:

Mr.Micro

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Sure why wouldn't there be - they've managed to work it so that if you don't use enough of their product they can hike the charges, and if you don't use it at all you'll STILL have to pay

It's win-win for them. For the rest it's another tax hike

Yes indeed, it looks like a sneaky way of raising money. I read in the Indo piece, posted in my other post, that the local authorities will be running their own supplies for 10 years or so, until the water authority takes over. So now, if I have got it right, we have another quango to pay salaries to, as well as all the staff, bonuses etc, yet the local authorities will still be doing the water and getting paid by local government? Another stroke by Hogan?

Sierra Oscar

The bonuses are alive and well in Irish Water despite the latest controversy - Irish Water defends bonus scheme for staff

One really does have to question if someone in a senior position deserves a bonus payment at the moment when the company has to rely hugely on external 'consultants' to get the job done.

raymon

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The bonuses are alive and well in Irish Water despite the latest controversy - Irish Water defends bonus scheme for staff

One really does have to question if someone in a senior position deserves a bonus payment at the moment when the company has to rely hugely on external 'consultants' to get the job done.

For once I agree with you . These bonuses are outrageous. The government needs to clamp down on overpaid employees with bloated pensions and bonuses before we have another ESB.

Sierra Oscar

raymon wrote: »

For once I agree with you . These bonuses are outrageous. The government needs to clamp down on overpaid employees with bloated pensions and bonuses before we have another ESB.

I would have thought that management would have waited until the company is actually up and running before they started trying to dish out the bonuses.

It shouldn't be happening anyway, but the optics are terrible regardless.

_Kaiser_

Y'know something... as bad as FF messed things up, FG are actually worse in my opinion - and I'm no fan of either party.

FF ironically delivered on what they promised.. that the party would continue as long as it could. FG promised change, reform and transparency.. and then immediately went back on all of that the minute they got into power bleating about how they inherited the mess or "the EU/Troika/ECB made us do it!" at every turn.

FF may have signed us up to economic slavery, but FG sealed the deal.. also in the dead of night while having a piss-up.

This Irish Water debacle is merely the latest example in a long line of corruption, incompetence, and jobs for the boys from Irish governments. We really shouldn't be surprised at what's coming out about the costs/bonuses etc over the last few days.

Are we EVER going to see a REAL alternative in this country??

creedp

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I would have thought that management would have waited until the company is actually up and running before they started trying to dish out the bonuses.

It shouldn't be happening anyway, but the optics are terrible regardless.

Its kind of amusing to hear the CEO of a company that hasn't got off the ground yet talking about a pay freeze being in place for its staff! The hypocricy of this from the Govt's perspective is also mind numbing. They cut PS wages and other terms and conditions because they could .. they didn't touch semi-state wages bacause of existing contractual entitlements (blame FF!). However, this Govt was responsible for establishing IW .. presumably they insisted that the new contractual entitlements for pay and other terms and conditions were consistent with Govt pay policy? From the IW debacle I can only assume the current Govt support the payment of significant bonuses for [semi-state] public sector workers.

jmayo

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I would have thought that management would have waited until the company is actually up and running before they started trying to dish out the bonuses.

For once I totally agree with you.
The whole idea of a bonus shoudl be that they are earned for work achieved.
So far Irish Water has just cost money and yet they are going to award themselves a bonus.

Did the founders of Google award themselves and their first employees a bonus before they even had their website up and running ?
Somehow I doubt it.

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It shouldn't be happening anyway, but the optics are terrible regardless.

It should not be happening period, optics be dammed.

hogan has a lot to answer for and the fact as admitted by one of the heads of his department that he was not told about spending, just illustrates how our civil service is still as bad as the one where the dept of finance didn't spot the Irish banks playing silly buggers with their loan books.

I am beginning to dispair that the Irish Water is turning into another HSE. :mad: