Do we already pay for water?

alastair

Phoebas wrote: »

My PPSN is 5146365F.
How does this help someone send me junk mail?


Or anything else?

OMG! The fluoride has gone to your head Phoebas!

No contract, no consent!

FREETV

Phoebas wrote: »

My PPSN is 5146365F.
How does this help someone send me junk mail?


Or anything else?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/gene-kerrigan/the-government-is-ppsing-all-over-us-30602998.html

http://stephendonnelly.ie/what-a-mess-irish-water-minister-kelly-the-data-protection-commissioner/

twowheelsgood

FREETV wrote: »

They would sell on your details to companies who would pay them so that they could then advertise and send flyers, packs etc to original Irish Water customers aka junk mail on services, products and the like.

They might. If they had my address. Or phone number. Or email.

But my PPS number?

Is there anything at all useful anyone can do with a PPS number?

alastair

FREETV wrote: »

Denis O' Brien owns GMC Sierra aka Siteserv and Newstalk Radio so of course they are to be biased in favour of Irish Water and water charges and keep pushing for them both.

Leaving aside the pedestrian fact that there's no evidence of such bias in the Pat Kenny piece...what leads you believe that Newstalk have any obligation to impartiality on this, or any other matter?

alastair

twowheelsgood wrote: »

They might. If they had my address. Or phone number. Or email.

But my PPS number?

Is there anything at all useful anyone can do with a PPS number?

I can now claim Phoebas' water allowance, once I additionally find out his name and age, and...

twowheelsgood

Phoebas wrote: »

I don't get this we're paying twice for it stuff.
Unless the money is just being buried in a field or something and not used for any other purpose, we are not paying for it twice.

I think one possible argument that you are paying more than once might apply if we were flush with cash and PS unions might (would!) flex their muscles to secure pay rises / reverse cuts for their members.

In this case you could argue, if not demonstrate in any way conclusively, that the portion of general taxation that might have been used to pay for water in our current setup is now being spent for the exclusive benefit of a minority.

Happily our “flush with cash” days are a long way off yet.

Phoebas

FREETV wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/gene-kerrigan/the-government-is-ppsing-all-over-us-30602998.html

http://stephendonnelly.ie/what-a-mess-irish-water-minister-kelly-the-data-protection-commissioner/

Hold on a second - none of those links explain how someone having my PPSN can be used to send me junk mail.
Somebody who got hold of my name and address could easily bombard me with junk mail - but nobody complains about disclosing that information to IW.

Galego

Phoebas wrote: »

My PPSN is 5146365F.
How does this help someone send me junk mail?


Or anything else?

Thanks for providing me your PPS number.

I will go and check my eyes this weekend using your PPS number.

LeinsterDub

SameDiff wrote: »

There you have it folks!

Q.E.D.

Seriously 3 Q.E.D. in 5 posts?

Phoebas

Actually, I can't really complain about being bombarded with junk mail. I come to this website willingly.

Phoebas

Galego wrote: »

Thanks for providing me your PPS number.

I will go and check my eyes this weekend using your PPS number.

My favourite colour is yellow - go and have your teeth cleaned too.

FREETV

PPS number misuse is one of the most dangerous types of identity theft. A thief may use your NI number fraudulently to obtain Social Security benefits, welfare benefits, tax refunds, or credit. In other cases, a thief might use your NI number to obtain employment in your name. An identity thief's use of your PPS number can cause you to lose the legitimate benefits to which you are entitled.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-used-someone-elses-identity-and-pps-number-to-claim-more-than-30k-in-disability-allowances-29143685.html

Phoebas

FREETV wrote: »

PPS number misuse is one of the most dangerous types of identity theft. A thief may use your NI number fraudulently to obtain Social Security benefits, welfare benefits, tax refunds, or credit. In other cases, a thief might use your NI number to obtain employment in your name. An identity thief's use of your PPS number can cause you to lose the legitimate benefits to which you are entitled.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-used-someone-elses-identity-and-pps-number-to-claim-more-than-30k-in-disability-allowances-29143685.html

You keep on posting stuff that you read online, but you don't seem to be able to explain how - now that you know my PPSN - you could do something fraudulent with it.

Can you explain, for example, the mechanics of someone else claiming a tax refund using my PPSN?

LeinsterDub

Phoebas wrote: »

Hold on a second - none of those links explain how someone having my PPSN can be used to send me junk mail.
Somebody who got hold of my name and address could easily bombard me with junk mail - but nobody complains about disclosing that information to IW.

They don't even need your name. Letters can still be sent to the occupier or resident right?

redmca2

When will the campaign for free/unpaid for electricity begin?
The logic for anyone who thinks we shouldn't pay for water is that we shouldn't pay for electricity and that it be covered by general taxes.

The idea that we already pay for water through taxes would be fine if all water users paid tax, but they don't.

It seems that all the objectors are right and the rest of Europe are wrong. An Irish solution to an Irish problem?

Repeat after me: "No Electricity Charges"

Jolly Red Giant

Manach wrote: »

Unfortunately the revenues collected are no longer sufficient for the government increase in spending as it takes up more of the GDP in activities outside its core functions. Hence the water tax is one more step in the march to pay for core services as the state continues to spend unchecked as it has the practically unchecked power and administrative apparatus to collect monies from people.

The deficit is €7billion and we are paying the IMF/ECB/various other sharks and spivs - €8billion in interest on the bailout (a bailout of the gambling debts of the rich elites)

Jolly Red Giant

redmca2 wrote: »

When will the campaign for free/unpaid for electricity begin?
The logic for anyone who thinks we shouldn't pay for water is that we shouldn't pay for electricity and that it be covered by general taxes.

The idea that we already pay for water through taxes would be fine if all water users paid tax, but they don't.

It seems that all the objectors are right and the rest of Europe are wrong. An Irish solution to an Irish problem?

Repeat after me: "No Electricity Charges"

Who said we shouldn't pay for water - as the OP shows - we already pay for it.

If you got two ESB bills and were told you had to pay both you wouldn't be so facetious.

twowheelsgood

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The deficit is €7billion and we are paying the IMF/ECB/various other sharks and spivs - €8billion in interest on the bailout (a bailout of the gambling debts of the rich elites)

Yeah, we should have gone with a different lender when we went looking to plug our €20b deficit hole.

Fr. Ned

redmca2 wrote: »

When will the campaign for free/unpaid for electricity begin?
The logic for anyone who thinks we shouldn't pay for water is that we shouldn't pay for electricity and that it be covered by general taxes.

The idea that we already pay for water through taxes would be fine if all water users paid tax, but they don't.

It seems that all the objectors are right and the rest of Europe are wrong. An Irish solution to an Irish problem?

Repeat after me: "No Electricity Charges"

I can choose from several companies to supply me with electricity.
How many water companies can I choose from?

twowheelsgood

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Who said we shouldn't pay for water - as the OP shows - we already pay for it.

If you got two ESB bills and were told you had to pay both you wouldn't be so facetious.

But if one payment was forwarded by the electricity company to your gas supplier to pay that bill you'd be content I presume?

Fr. Ned

Fuzzy wrote: »

1) With a straight face you can say that no external parties forced the government to set Irish Water up?

Reference:
"In October 2010, the administration’s ‘National Recovery Plan 2010-2014’ pledged that metering would form part of charges. Metering was to be introduced by 2014. As part of the EC-ECB-IMF Programme of Assistance to Ireland, agreed in November 2010, the Coalition agreed to the introduction of domestic water charges in 2012/2013."

So what the part in bold means is that they essentially forced the gov to start water charges, or they wouldn't get the "Programme of Assistance" (ie Money).

2) This is not the point. It's a stealth tax. I too understand how tax increases work.


Don't kill me for referencing wikipedia, but this article is actually pretty straightforward to understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

The 'Irish Water' super quango is the brainchild of FG and FG alone.
They even had it named in 2009, a full 2 years before they assumed office.

The FFail MOU with the troika would have allowed FFail not to set up this quango as long as they could show how they could raise a similar amount of money.

Make no mistake about it, 'Irish Water' is FG's baby all the way.

micosoft

Fuzzy wrote: »

1) With a straight face you can say that no external parties forced the government to set Irish Water up?

Reference:
"In October 2010, the administration’s ‘National Recovery Plan 2010-2014’ pledged that metering would form part of charges. Metering was to be introduced by 2014. As part of the EC-ECB-IMF Programme of Assistance to Ireland, agreed in November 2010, the Coalition agreed to the introduction of domestic water charges in 2012/2013."

So what the part in bold means is that they essentially forced the gov to start water charges, or they wouldn't get the "Programme of Assistance" (ie Money).

Because of the general incompetence of the Irish Electorate in voting in the car crash economics of Fianna Fail, we had to borrow from the EU and the IMF who were the ONLY people willing to do this. Unsurprisingly they asked us how we intended to a. pay them back their taxpayers money b. how we were going to avoid crashing our tax system by putting most of our eggs in the cyclical property tax. We could have proposed a tax on cheese. It was up to us to describe HOW we would do this.

2) This is not the point. It's a stealth tax. I too understand how tax increases work.

Do you know what the word stealth means? Is the ESB bill you get a "stealth tax". It's a meaningless phrase and being charged for the water you use is about as direct and un-stealthy as it gets.

Don't kill me for referencing wikipedia, but this article is actually pretty straightforward to understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland[/QUOTE]

Are you suggesting our tax policy be set in stone by wikipedia articles?

Fr. Ned

micosoft wrote: »

Because of the general incompetence of the Irish Electorate in voting in the car crash economics of Fianna Fail, we had to borrow from the EU and the IMF who were the ONLY people willing to do this. Unsurprisingly they asked us how we intended to a. pay them back their taxpayers money b. how we were going to avoid crashing our tax system by putting most of our eggs in the cyclical property tax. We could have proposed a tax on cheese. It was up to us to describe HOW we would do this.

Well, finally, someone in favour of water charges tells it as it is.
It's not about conservation and it's not about having a better system.
It's about taking the provision of water off the government books so there's more money left to pay the debts built up and 'taxing' us in another way for water.

Thanks for that.

micosoft

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Who said we shouldn't pay for water - as the OP shows - we already pay for it.

If you got two ESB bills and were told you had to pay both you wouldn't be so facetious.

The OP showed nothing of the sort given we have a ten billion euro deficit. A deficit that is mainly comprised of Social Welfare and Health spending on us.

And you do get two bills (albeit on one piece of paper). There is no "ESB" bill. You get a bill from your energy supplier for the cost of generating the electricity you use. That goes to the electricity generator (e.g. Airtricity).
Also on this bill is a second charge for running the electricity distribution grid. That goes to ESB networks, the regulated entity that runs the power grid.

micosoft

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Well, finally, someone in favour of water charges tells it as it is.
It's not about conservation and it's not about having a better system.
It's about taking the provision of water off the government books so there's more money left to pay the debts built up and 'taxing' us in another way for water.

Thanks for that.

You seem to be extremely limited in your thinking if you can't grasp that sometimes we do things for multiple reasons. It is to conserve water AND to raise revenue to improve our infrastructure AND to take debt off Government books.

Fr. Ned

micosoft wrote: »

You seem to be extremely limited in your thinking if you can't grasp that sometimes we do things for multiple reasons. It is to conserve water AND to raise revenue to improve our infrastructure AND to take debt off Government books.

How can it be about water conservation if the super quango is allowed increase it's price per unit if we don't use enough??
Why would anyone bother conserving water?

€1.2 billion per year was been spent from general taxation up to this, that would be quite enough to provide water, estimated at somewhere around €650 million pa and provide for infrastructural upgrades if the system was ran correctly.

That just leaves us with point 3......

micosoft

Fr. Ned wrote: »

How can it be about water conservation if the super quango is allowed increase it's price per unit if we don't use enough??
Why would anyone bother conserving water?

Again, such limited capacity to hold multiple variables in ones head. That would only be true if population growth was zero. It's is obviously not and growing significantly enough that any conservation would be outpaced by demand growth from a growing population. At best conservation will slow down overall growth. Meaning that the fixed costs are still apportioned across a growing base.

Fr. Ned

micosoft wrote: »

Again, such limited capacity to hold multiple variables in ones head.

You continue on with the personal abuse. I'm out, for the moment anyway.

Phoebas

Fr. Ned wrote: »

How can it be about water conservation if the super quango is allowed increase it's price per unit if we don't use enough??

It isn't.

For Reals

redmca2 wrote: »

When will the campaign for free/unpaid for electricity begin?
The logic for anyone who thinks we shouldn't pay for water is that we shouldn't pay for electricity and that it be covered by general taxes.

The idea that we already pay for water through taxes would be fine if all water users paid tax, but they don't.

It seems that all the objectors are right and the rest of Europe are wrong. An Irish solution to an Irish problem?

Repeat after me: "No Electricity Charges"

Nobody expects free water, they expect to continue paying through general taxation.
If general taxation is short raise taxes. Pretty simple.
As for your 'not all users pay tax' baloney, what about street lights, traffic lights, grants to public museums, park benches? We should have a tax for each and a quango run by friends of Fine Gael for each one? Nonsense.