A solution to the water meter protests.

realitykeeper

I would like to suggest a way of dealing with those who obstruct the good people whose job it is to install water meters.

The government should divide the public into two camps: Those with water meters installed and those without. The people with water meters could pay on average half what the people without water meters are required to pay.

This would lead to a surge in the demand for water meters to be installed and the water meter protesters would then be limited to a few criminals with cannabis plants growing in their attics.

Of course, there will be some who will say they are not paying for water no matter what. If those people are serious about not paying for water they will have no objection to the water meters being installed. In any case, non payers could have their water cut off.

RichardAnd

Some people have valid reasons why they don't want water meters installed. Some people also don't just accept everything that the venal, obsequious and perfidious mechanisms of the state feeds them.

No one is ever wrong for questioning the actions of any state. I have far more respect for someone who acts on their beliefs and makes a stand than I could ever hold for those who follow the leader blindly.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. However, I can assure you that not everyone opposed to water charge is a "criminal" who grows weed. If they are such a person, then they're not very smart weed growers because if you have crops of illegal plants growing in your attic, attracting the attention of the powers that be by protesting and blocking public works is a really good idea...

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

9bred4

They can't cut off the water supply however they control the water pressure that gets to you so..

gctest50

RichardAnd wrote: »

Some people have valid reasons why they don't want water meters installed......

Name a few ?

Anyway :

- the meter is out on the street - you don't own it
- the meter is on the water pipe you don't own
- farms and other businesses have had meters for decades - no issues

sprocker spaniel

A lot of people will probably just let them turn the pressure and manage away without paying

comongethappy

The bills will start before metering is complete anyway, so harassing workers is pretty futile.

Icepick

RichardAnd wrote: »

Some people also don't just accept everything that the venal, obsequious and perfidious mechanisms of the state feeds them.

Unless it's clean water for free of course.
And by free I mean paid by others because they are entitled.

RichardAnd

gctest50 wrote: »

Name a few ?

Anyway :

- the meter is out on the street - you don't own it
- the meter is on the water pipe you don't own
- farms and other businesses have had meters for decades - no issues

Off the top of my head...

1. Many people believe that they pay a large amount of tax. In particular, they pay property tax. This was a new tax created to pay for services and amenities. Is water not just that?

2. Some people, who may not be opposed to water charges per say, are very much opposed to the setting up of Irish Water. This is a publicly funded quango, and it is taking a share of all the water fees collected. Why not cut out the middle man and raise taxes instead of pretending that water charges are not a tax.

3. Once again, Irish Water. These guys have said that they will raise prices if people are incredibly circumspect in their use of water. This is because they need a certain amount to maintain a profit. Water charges were originally claimed to be a means of conserving water. If doing just that means higher charges, then it seems something is a miss.

4. Many people are sick of the actions of the state. Water charges represent a chance to stand up to the said state.


As to your points, I spent several years working for the Property Registration Authority, so I'm very familiar with the facts of what people own and do not own. I'm also aware that businesses have paid water charges for many years. I don't see how any of them justify water charges.

RichardAnd

Icepick wrote: »

Unless it's clean water for free of course.
And by free I mean paid by others because they are entitled.

Many of the people protesting pay taxes. Not everyone who protests in unemployed.

As for entitlement ...

http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/human_right_to_water.shtml

gctest50

RichardAnd wrote: »

Off the top of my head...

1. Many people believe that they pay a large amount of tax. In particular, they pay property tax. This was a new tax created to pay for services and amenities. Is water not just that?

I thought one of the reasons for property tax was to get a list of who owned what in an "accessible" way/place - bonus: brings in some tax

RichardAnd wrote: »

2. Some people, who may not be opposed to water charges per say, are very much opposed to the setting up of Irish Water. This is a publicly funded quango, and it is taking a share of all the water fees collected. Why not cut out the middle man and raise taxes instead of pretending that water charges are not a tax.

Any better ideas how they are going to pay for the meters and the installation of same ?

RichardAnd wrote: »

3. Once again, Irish Water. These guys have said that they will raise prices if people are incredibly circumspect in their use of water. This is because they need a certain amount to maintain a profit. Water charges were originally claimed to be a means of conserving water. If doing just that means higher charges, then it seems something is a miss.

There are many leaks still due to intense frost, age etc - needs to be sorted - huge amount of water is lost

- one way is dig up all the piping
- other way is put meters on the head ends and the tails and subtract one from the other

RichardAnd wrote: »

4. Many people are sick of the actions of the state. Water charges represent a chance to stand up to the said state.

So, it should all just waddle along like the drunk duck that it is then ?

RichardAnd wrote: »

As to your points, I spent several years working for the Property Registration Authority, so I'm very familiar with the facts of what people own and do not own. I'm also aware that businesses have paid water charges for many years. I don't see how any of them justify water charges.

The point of it is that "you" don't really matter - drop dead tomorrow and the whole show will plough on happily.
Now you've done your bit setting it all up - the real work can start

antoobrien

RichardAnd wrote: »

Off the top of my head...

1. Many people believe that they pay a large amount of tax. In particular, they pay property tax. This was a new tax created to pay for services and amenities. Is water not just that?

The water charges are going specifically to pay for the provision and maintenance of water distribution systems, unlike say the motor tax of which at most 1/3 can be used for maintaining roads.

But then by your rather strange argument, bus, train & taxi fares are all taxes.

RichardAnd wrote: »

2. Some people, who may not be opposed to water charges per say, are very much opposed to the setting up of Irish Water. This is a publicly funded quango, and it is taking a share of all the water fees collected. Why not cut out the middle man and raise taxes instead of pretending that water charges are not a tax.

They are cutting out the middleman - the revenue commissioners. The model you are proposing is the equivalent to proposing that Vodafone et al do not charge for the use of their systems but get revenue to collect their money for them.

RichardAnd wrote: »

3. Once again, Irish Water. These guys have said that they will raise prices if people are incredibly circumspect in their use of water. This is because they need a certain amount to maintain a profit. Water charges were originally claimed to be a means of conserving water. If doing just that means higher charges, then it seems something is a miss.

Because it has been set up as a company state aid rules apply, so they have to make up all the costs of capital spending. I don't know what the minimum is, but I recon they need to be making 100m a year profit for 20-30 years before we will get the national water network up to scratch. This is before we go with vanity projects like flooding bogs so that leaky pipes can be left unrepaired in Dublin.

RichardAnd wrote: »

4. Many people are sick of the actions of the state. Water charges represent a chance to stand up to the said state.

That's more than just kinda childish, it's pure infantile and counter productive.

If you have a problem with hospital ward closures, bus route closures, schools losing SNAs etc, protest those. Don't protest about something that actually has the possibility of cutting out some of the wasteful habits of this country.

Manach

Water tax goes to the heart of what duties the state should perform. Provide basic service a common good through revenue collection payment. The water system had already been set in existence and paid for out of the main tax. The water tax (as well as the property) is a means to add to central revenue pool and as a means to keep an expansionist state functioning.
Thus there is an onus both to protest this and highlight the growing addition of a bureaucratic layer (as per the numerous non-core Irish Water jobs) that will increase the price of water.

meglome

Manach wrote: »

Water tax goes to the heart of what duties the state should perform. Provide basic service a common good through revenue collection payment. The water system had already been set in existence and paid for out of the main tax. The water tax (as well as the property) is a means to add to central revenue pool and as a means to keep an expansionist state functioning.
Thus there is an onus both to protest this and highlight the growing addition of a bureaucratic layer (as per the numerous non-core Irish Water jobs) that will increase the price of water.

But it's not paid for out of tax now is it. Even if we ignore the polluter pays principal which is a good one we simply do not raise enough tax for the services the state provides. We just borrowed 11.5 billion to meet the shortfall but somehow you think our taxes are paying for water??!!?

ezra_pound

Option a
increase income tax prsi etc. And disincentivise employment.

Option b
Introduce responsible tax which incentivises efficient use of property and water and reduce income tax.

I'm with option b.

ardmacha

People, rightly, point out that there should not be a large bureaucratic layer in Irish Water. But then they propose complex tariffs and exemptions that need a vast bureaucracy to implement.

Manach

meglome wrote: »

But it's not paid for out of tax now is it. Even if we ignore the polluter pays principal which is a good one we simply do not raise enough tax for the services the state provides. We just borrowed 11.5 billion to meet the shortfall but somehow you think our taxes are paying for water??!!?

So by that argument, taxes pay for nothing?
First - I'm rather stumped by the usage of polluter pays principle usage here. It was developed more in line with Tort economic theory which applies here.
Second - the creation of another agency model of tax extraction is built on a system that has been described by texts as nearly unclassifiable due to its anarchic nature.
Third - that shortfall is due to the state moving outside its core competencies, as mentioned, and spending outside its limit. The water/home taxes are just this generation's contribution to the great state expanision phenomenon.

smellmepower

jacksie66 wrote: »

You cannot have your water cut off. It's a basic human right and therefore you can't be deprived of it. Simple as.

Once the provision of water is in the hands of private business they'll do pretty much whatever they like.Already happening in the states ,though in this case the city is cutting poor people off to make them more attractive for prospective buyers.

Paulzx

9bred4 wrote: »

They can't cut off the water supply however they control the water pressure that gets to you so..

I'll be interested to see how they do that although i'm sure it's already been planned.

The supply on the mains itself can't be turned down without affecting everyone else. I've had a good look at my own meter and there only seems to be a simple on/off knob which is easily accessible and not secure.

How are the authorities going to permanantly decrease someones pressure?

Jolly Red Giant

ezra_pound wrote: »

Option a
increase income tax prsi etc. And disincentivise employment.

Option b
Introduce responsible tax which incentivises efficient use of property and water and reduce income tax.

I'm with option b.

I go for option c

Tax the rich

realitykeeper

jacksie66 wrote: »

You cannot have your water cut off. It's a basic human right and therefore you can't be deprived of it. Simple as.

Agreed. However by not paying you are choosing to have your water cut off. It would be inhumane to inflict water on non payers who clearly don`t want it. A non payer may say they want water but really they don`t - their non payment proves it.

comongethappy

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I go for option c

Tax the rich

Elaborate?

Going Forward

ezra_pound wrote: »

Option a
increase income tax prsi etc. And disincentivise employment.

Option b
Introduce responsible tax which incentivises efficient use of property and water and reduce income tax.

I'm with option b.

Option b sounds like a no brainer.

Incentivise efficient use of property? And water? Whilst reducing income tax?

Who could argue with that?

Please elaborate on how charging for water affects the use of property.
Please show how water is being used inefficiently.
Please show how income tax is being reduced.

Ta.

ezra_pound

Manach wrote: »

So by that argument, taxes pay for nothing?
First - I'm rather stumped by the usage of polluter pays principle usage here. It was developed more in line with Tort economic theory which applies here.
Second - the creation of another agency model of tax extraction is built on a system that has been described by texts as nearly unclassifiable due to its anarchic nature.
Third - that shortfall is due to the state moving outside its core competencies, as mentioned, and spending outside its limit. The water/home taxes are just this generation's contribution to the great state expanision phenomenon.

What spending has the state taken on outside its limits? Health and social protection? Education? We're not spending on space programmes or seti.

ezra_pound

Going Forward wrote: »

Option b sounds like a no brainer.

Incentivise efficient use of property? And water? Whilst reducing income tax?

Who could argue with that?

Please elaborate on how charging for water affects the use of property.
Please show how water is being used inefficiently.
Please show how income tax is being reduced.

Ta.

You misunderstand.

I mean efficient taxes plural to incentivise efficient use of water -water tax and property -lpt.

Re examples of inefficient uses of water I've been advised by several people to leave taps running all night in the big freeze. Some people seem to spend aeons in the shower.

Edit:

Per person use of water is two to three times euro average. Waste waste waste

Manach

ezra_pound wrote: »

What spending has the state taken on outside its limits? Health and social protection? Education? We're not spending on space programmes or seti.

Given the recent Indian space efforts, those are actually examples of government programs that came in on time and achieved their budget. The key question is what are the limits that could have been set in those areas and have instead been blown past, given the decision to tap more from the public's assets. Water comes as close to being core to a state's raison d'etre as possible, so why do you think it should be spun off in a process that based on previous examples of state /semi-states that are inefficient and prone to cost more that if delivered by the state?

ezra_pound

Manach wrote: »

Given the recent Indian space efforts, those are actually examples of government programs that came in on time and achieved their budget. The key question is what are the limits that could have been set in those areas and have instead been blown past, given the decision to tap more from the public's assets. Water comes as close to being core to a state's raison d'etre as possible, so why do you think it should be spun off in a process that based on previous examples of state /semi-states that are inefficient and prone to cost more that if delivered by the state?

Answer my question. What unnecessary roles has the "expansionist state" sic. Taken on?

ezra_pound

Manach wrote: »

Given the recent Indian space efforts, those are actually examples of government programs that came in on time and achieved their budget. The key question is what are the limits that could have been set in those areas and have instead been blown past, given the decision to tap more from the public's assets. Water comes as close to being core to a state's raison d'etre as possible, so why do you think it should be spun off in a process that based on previous examples of state /semi-states that are inefficient and prone to cost more that if delivered by the state?

Because people need to pay for it in order to create a functioning water economy.

Jolly Red Giant

comongethappy wrote: »

Elaborate?

A 0.5% tax on all wealth over €1million would generate the same amount of money that is planned from water charges.

But you could go further -

1. repair of the Victorian mains water network would result in savings of €250million a year
2. the retro-fitting of homes to collect greywater and rainwater for use in non-consumption activities would result in further savings of €125million a year

Both of these measures would be self-financing and create thousands of jobs. Instead the government wastes a fortune fitting unnecessary water meters - charging people for their installation (it will be added to your bill) - giving the contracts to their rich financial backers - and paving the way for the privatisation of the water network with escalating charges in future years.

ezra_pound

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

A 0.5% tax on all wealth over €1million would generate the same amount of money that is planned from water charges.

But you could go further -

1. repair of the Victorian mains water network would result in savings of €250million a year
2. the retro-fitting of homes to collect greywater and rainwater for use in non-consumption activities would result in further savings of €125million a year

Both of these measures would be self-financing and create thousands of jobs. Instead the government wastes a fortune fitting unnecessary water meters - charging people for their installation (it will be added to your bill) - giving the contracts to their rich financial backers - and paving the way for the privatisation of the water network with escalating charges in future years.

So you want rich individuals to leave this country instead of staying here? Do you want large deposits to leave the Irish banking system?

Yes of course the Victorian water system needs to be upgraded. The problem is that there has been no funding for water services since the 70s and no central agency with responsibility for water.

Going Forward

ezra_pound wrote: »

Edit:

Per person use of water is two to three times euro average. Waste waste waste

Source?

ezra_pound

Going Forward wrote: »

Source?

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/11/20/in-ireland-water-will-no-longer-be-free/

http://www.environ.ie/en/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,29192,en.pdf

Going Forward

ezra_pound wrote: »

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/11/20/in-ireland-water-will-no-longer-be-free/

http://www.environ.ie/en/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,29192,en.pdf

Are you trolling?

The Dept of the Environment publication states that Irish water consunption is 150l per person per day!

The National Geographic article: "water demand per person is estimated to average 102 gallons (386 liters) per day, double or triple that in other European countries and about the same as in the United States" is incorrect.

Irish Water also quotes 150l per day, which is close to the average for similarly developed EU states.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/150-litres-of-water-consumed-daily-by-every-person-245927.html

BTW a question I always ask those in favour of charging for water is, just how much water should Irish people consume per day?

And does that justify setting up Irish Water?

iainBB

i have a protest method that will work if people do it .or at least make me free great if i am on my own.

just leave the tap running from the 1st of October. at least i will be getting my money worth. and if enough people did it it was would make a massive difference.

carpejugulum

iainBB wrote: »

i have a protest method that will work if people do it .or at least make me free great if i am on my own.

just leave the tap running from the 1st of October. at least i will be getting my money worth. and if enough people did it it was would make a massive difference.

An idea a 5-year old can be proud of!

iainBB

carpejugulum wrote: »

An idea a 5-year old can be proud of!

Let us compare your idea to mine.?

Too many stupid individuals in this world that all they the ability to do is say no. . Probably comes from child's "no I don't want to go to bed"


Has protest worked has burning shed load of meter . Even stopping meter installation is not going to do it.

If 1000 people did This it would make a difference.

Children have the best ideas

gaius c

jacksie66 wrote: »

You cannot have your water cut off. It's a basic human right and therefore you can't be deprived of it. Simple as.

Correct. You're very welcome to collect the rainwater that falls on the roof of your house but if you want clean potable water supplied by utility companies, you have to pay.

gaius c

iainBB wrote: »

i have a protest method that will work if people do it .or at least make me free great if i am on my own.

just leave the tap running from the 1st of October. at least i will be getting my money worth. and if enough people did it it was would make a massive difference.

I do the same when petrol prices go up. I jam a stick in the petrol pump and leave it spill out on the ground.

Sticking it to the man so I am!

FreudianSlippers

jacksie66 wrote: »

You cannot have your water cut off. It's a basic human right and therefore you can't be deprived of it. Simple as.

Wrong: "The human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses"

Affordable does not mean free.

iainBB

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Wrong: "The human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses"

Affordable does not mean free.

The people that are protesting disagree with you with.

Regardless of the reason for the introduction people are angry. We have seen in recent month’s people trying to disrupt the water meter installation, marches on public building, and more recently the burning a shed that held water meters. Has any of the above really made a difference?, has the government change their mind? Has it even slowed down the introduction? I would say “NO” these actions have done nothing and will do nothing.

The reason why the above does not changing anything is simple it does not hurt the people at the top. I will give you a simple example if you kick a person in the private area each day VERY SOON, some will change their behaviour. Either put a protective cup on, learn to defend themselves, stop standing with their legs open etc.


What I propose
Water is such a precious asset right. And we have unlimited supply in each and every home. If from the 1st of October ( the day they starting charging ) enough people left the tap on in their house for as long as it takes until change happens.
Of course if it is just me nothing will be different other then I will be getting my money worth of water lol.
With enough people that will make a large difference. If it got into the paper that there was a shortage, people would start to store large volumes of water which would add to the issue.

FreudianSlippers

iainBB wrote: »

The people that are protesting disagree with you with.

They can disagree with me all they like, I don't come up with what are human rights, the UN does and that is a direct quote from the human right to water that everyone is on about.

One doesn't just get to selectively quote their rights to suit them. Soz.

iainBB

So if you where going to protest what method would you use that would be more effective?

Are you saying that if all turn the water on and leave it on from the 1st of Octover it would not make a massive difference, say 5000 people turn the tap on would be a lot of water wasted it would be a major issue for the country.

at 5lt a min average tap flow it would be around 36m lt of water a day being lost. will that be enought of an impact to let the government stand up and listen. Human Rights are not going to save us lol you might was well pray for Superman.

Sheldons Brain

iainBB wrote: »

So if you where going to protest what method would you use that would be more effective?

Fill big drums and give water to people with meters.

Larbre34

All sounds like a lot of effort. I let them install my meter without any fuss. I just intend to disable it, bypass it and return the demands for payment unopened. And I will instruct anyone else how to do the same if they want.

iainBB

Larbre34 wrote: »

All sounds like a lot of effort.

a lot of work come on lol

Step one :put hose out back in drain
Step two :turn on hose on the 1st of October


We are installing a complete water recovery system and intend to only take drinking water from the mainline.
Plan to do the same when meter is installed but that will not happen for a very long time here.

but in the mean time this is the best method of protest i have seen that would make a big difference with small number of people.

Idbatterim

I dont get the hype and fury over the water charges, people on average incomes are paying over the average yearly water charge per week in income taxes and getting nothing in return for it!

carpejugulum

iainBB wrote: »

Let us compare your idea to mine.?

My idea is you pay for what you use.

Larbre34 wrote: »

All sounds like a lot of effort. I let them install my meter without any fuss. I just intend to disable it, bypass it and return the demands for payment unopened. And I will instruct anyone else how to do the same if they want.

Criminal damage. Another brilliant idea.

Can you 'protesters' explain how paying for treated water is different from paying for food and electricity?

iainBB

Tax

carpejugulum

iainBB wrote: »

Tax

how so?

Going Forward

carpejugulum wrote: »

how so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

carpejugulum

Going Forward wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

Water should have been charged like any other utility decades ago.
Leaving it to the public service created the huge problems with leaks and inefficient workforce we have today.
I understand freeloaders disagree by default.