IW/Anything Water Related-Warning in OP

BoatMad

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

It's quite simple. The tax you paid in the past paid for water you used in the past. The water you use in the future will be paid for with water charges in the future.

Tax paid in the past is not going to fund the 300 million or so that is required next year (and every other year after).

If Irish Water falls apart, who will be paying the 300 million next year? It will be disproportionally paid by working people who are getting hammered every week by USC, PAYE, PRSI, etc. I can't understand working people protesting about water charges. They should be in favour of a broadening of the tax base where everybody pays their share fair for what they use. Otherwise, their income tax rates will rise (or are less likely to be reduced at least) and they'll end up paying more in the end because they'll be paying for everybody's water.

I live in hope that the silent majority of working people in this country have the cop on to realise this.

100% , comsumption taxes actually favour middle income families, if matched by reducing income tax. it spreads the tax load out to everyone, cause even the guy hiding his income aboard has to pay for his water and his property etc.

( you see this in the USA , lots of non-income related taxes that are very hard to avoid, the US is a model of how you implement a really strict tax system and then make people pay)

hatrickpatrick

BoatMad wrote: »

fine reduce john Tierneys pay to €1, have you solved the problem of needing billions to fund the water service, have you

Not at all, and it's still cronyism as he's still in that position despite the obvious conflict of interest in his appointment.

look at the facts , forget the vengeance, look at solving the problems. man up to the issues, not look to throw "rocks" at the issue.

I'm up for both vengeance and solving problems. There's no reason one cannot accomplish both.

BoatMad

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not at all, and it's still cronyism as he's still in that position despite the obvious conflict of interest in his appointment.

nit pick my answer if you want, the point is the €200k is a drop in the ocean , its not the issue

I'm up for both vengeance and solving problems. There's no reason one cannot accomplish both.

the trouble with vengeance, is that its kinda hard to really identify the culprits ( every new first time buyer in 2002-2006, buy to lets, people with two jobs, etc etc ), and you never know who gets strung up on the "hanging tree", usually its you or me or the wrong people anyway.

Mob rule is not particularly accurate or fair.

hatrickpatrick

BoatMad wrote: »

sound bytes might fool some, IW issues are not John Tierneys pay, they are the bloated pay of all the CC workers transferred on full guarantees, they are the cosy deals with the CC for assets and "service level agreements"

yes the bones of the 80 million actually ended up funding their IT systems, which was a travesty ,

IW IS a travesty. but the CEOs pay is not the issue.

I never said the CEO's pay was the issue, it's simply part of the issue. All of the other points you have raised are also valid issues. What I find odd is that you acknowledge these issue yet you still mock my and others' condemnation of them - you accept that IW have spent a colossal amount of money on non water related stuff and yet you think this is not something people should be getting pissed off about?

Here's an analogy for you: You live in a small town with only one local grocery shop. The cost of food at your local shop increases massively. You learn that this is because they're overspending on a new neon sign for the front of the shop, not because of anything actually related to the cost of food.

Your condescending attitude towards my arguments would suggest that you would happily pay this increased cost and it wouldn't piss you off in the slightest that your disposable income was falling because your shop had decided to go on a spending spree for something which was entirely discretionary.

I find this a little hard to believe, to be honest.

JRant

BoatMad wrote: »

No, I support consumption based taxes.

I would much prefer to see IW replaced, in fact Id prefer if it was a fully private multiple producer, common network model, which no infection from county county workers or management,.

nor are being quadruple taxed, you cannot just ring fence the things you'd like your taxes to pay for, taken in total you are not actually paying enough tax.

I can see where you're coming from and you make some reasonable points but please give over with the not paying enough tax malarkey.

As you said yourself there is massive wastage in this country and not a thing has been done to address this.

Why should people have more and more money taken off them when the system is obviously broken?

A health system that is unfit for purpose.

Kids going to school in portacabins.

Massive emigration problems.

I could go on but i hope you get my idea.

I also have a huge problem with billions of euro's worth of public infrastructure being handed over to a semi-state company. The water network certainly needs work carried out on it but the existing system was paid for by you, me, our parents and those before them.

hatrickpatrick

BoatMad wrote: »

nit pick my answer if you want, the point is the €200k is a drop in the ocean , its not the issue

It doesn't matter how much it is, it's being paid to a political crony and is immoral. Some of us care about ethics as well as practical consequences, and this is not something I am in any way ashamed of.

the trouble with vengeance, is that its kinda hard to really identify the culprits ( every new first time buyer in 2002-2006, buy to lets, people with two jobs, etc etc ), and you never know who gets strung up on the "hanging tree", usually its you or me or the wrong people anyway.

Mob rule is not particularly accurate or fair.

You're making some leap from objecting to members of the political hierarchy being appointed to highly paid roles where there is an obvious conflict of interest, and support for mob rule.

JRant

BoatMad wrote: »

So what you are saying is that 150,000 or all of ireland or whatever can be cowed by invoking the Revenue Commissioners, wow.

people payed the LPT , when they realised (a) it was needed and (b) it wasn't that expensive. The can't pay wont pay brigade started off full well knowing its was to be Revenue collected. Didn't work out well.

You're right, the LPT was needed to help finance the setup of IW.

And yes people are cowed by Revenue. They'd take the fillings out of your teeth if you owed them money.

JRant

BoatMad wrote: »

100% , comsumption taxes actually favour middle income families, if matched by reducing income tax. it spreads the tax load out to everyone, cause even the guy hiding his income aboard has to pay for his water and his property etc.

( you see this in the USA , lots of non-income related taxes that are very hard to avoid, the US is a model of how you implement a really strict tax system and then make people pay)

You also see lots of low income people living in tents in the US of A.

The US model is one we should most certainly not be looking at as an example of how to do things.

BoatMad

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I never said the CEO's pay was the issue, it's simply part of the issue. All of the other points you have raised are also valid issues. What I find odd is that you acknowledge these issue yet you still mock my and others' condemnation of them - you accept that IW have spent a colossal amount of money on non water related stuff and yet you think this is not something people should be getting pissed off about?

Here's an analogy for you: You live in a small town with only one local grocery shop. The cost of food at your local shop increases massively. You learn that this is because they're overspending on a new neon sign for the front of the shop, not because of anything actually related to the cost of food.

Your condescending attitude towards my arguments would suggest that you would happily pay this increased cost and it wouldn't piss you off in the slightest that your disposable income was falling because your shop had decided to go on a spending spree for something which was entirely discretionary.

I find this a little hard to believe, to be honest.

What I find a problem with is

1. I pay too much tax, but we clearly have a budget deficit but I dint see the connection

2. I want to pay less tax , but I don't want any cut in services, in fact I want more"free things"

3. I hate people earning 200K they are the cause of it all.

4. we can solve a billon euro problem by firing a man on 200K.!


I have no issue with a reasonable consumption based water charge.


as to your analogy with the grocers shop, the answer is called Lidl. The market responds to correct what you say, because your higher priced grocer now offers an opportunity for a leaner and meaner grocer to arrive and set up shop , result a overpriced grocer goes out of business.


I have no issue with a multiple private producer, single delivery network model of water delivery. Nothing the public sector does , by definition, will be efficient.

I also fail to understand the demand to have it return to the county councils, sure the solution is to put it back into the vastly inefficient service which broke it in the first place.

( take bin charges, they are now so low, that companies are actually giving bust all over the place, mine are half the cost of what they were when the local authority did it)


The issue isn't private versus public, the way to low and lower water charges is efficiency, the PS has never even understood the word.

IW is a travesty, I prefer to see it properly privatised then leave it in the hands of a monopolistic state enterprise.

JRant

BoatMad wrote: »

What I find a problem with is

1. I pay too much tax, but we clearly have a budget deficit but I dint see the connection

2. I want to pay less tax , but I don't want any cut in services, in fact I want more"free things"

3. I hate people earning 200K they are the cause of it all.

4. we can solve a billon euro problem by firing a man on 200K.!


I have no issue with a reasonable consumption based water charge.


as to your analogy with the grocers shop, the answer is called Lidl. The market responds to correct what you say, because your higher priced grocer now offers an opportunity for a leaner and meaner grocer to arrive and set up shop , result a overpriced grocer goes out of business.


I have no issue with a multiple private producer, single delivery network model of water delivery. Nothing the public sector does , by definition, will be efficient.

I also fail to understand the demand to have it return to the county councils, sure the solution is to put it back into the vastly inefficient service which broke it in the first place.

( take bin charges, they are now so low, that companies are actually giving bust all over the place, mine are half the cost of what they were when the local authority did it)


The issue isn't private versus public, the way to low and lower water charges is efficiency, the PS has never even understood the word.

IW is a travesty, I prefer to see it properly privatised then leave it in the hands of a monopolistic state enterprise.

How about

5: I pay plenty in taxes, don't mind but want to see value for money and those squandering OUR money held accountable.

Radical I know, but there you have it.

BoatMad

JRant wrote: »

You also see lots of low income people living in tents in the US of A.

The US model is one we should most certainly not be looking at as an example of how to do things.

You are mixing up their social policy and their tax policy.

I don't know if you've ever lived there and paid taxes , I have.

as a tax system its extremely good at collecting non-income tax

have a look at its corporation tax, property taxes, local taxes, etc etc etc

its a much wider tax base system then anything here. ( and thats why I recommend it as a model)

BoatMad

JRant wrote: »

How about

5: I pay plenty in taxes, don't mind but want to see value for money and those squandering OUR money held accountable.

Radical I know, but there you have it.

perhaps you could point to where several billion in a budget deficit can be found merely by looking at "value for money"

of course "value for money" means examining public servants salaries, thats like teachers, nurses, office workers, ity means examining their gold plated pensions, sick pay polices ,absenteeism etc etc

and yes , we must look at the higher echelons as well,

I see we agree on one thing then , an efficient public sector.

BoatMad

JRant wrote: »

You're right, the LPT was needed to help finance the setup of IW.

And yes people are cowed by Revenue. They'd take the fillings out of your teeth if you owed them money.

actually the NPRF was used to finance IW, not the LPT.

what you are saying is that this campaign has only got wings because the people in it feel they can get away with not paying

oh "paddy" what a rebel you are.

JRant

BoatMad wrote: »

You are mixing up their social policy and their tax policy.

I don't know if you've ever lived there and paid taxes , I have.

as a tax system its extremely good at collecting non-income tax have a look at its corporation tax, property taxes, local taxes, etc etc etc

its a much wider tax base system then anything here. ( and thats why I recommend it as a model)

The middle class is being destroyed in the States.

so no, I don't agree that it is a model we should aspire to.

donvito99

JRant wrote: »

As you said yourself there is massive wastage in this country and not a thing has been done to address this.

Bollocks contention. Tell that to the thousands in the public sector told they're sacked, that they've to work more for less with less, and so on.

Look also to hundred or so million saved clamping down on SW fraud.

Water is wasted massively, so why not tax it.

Why should people have more and more money taken off them when the system is obviously broken?

The system may be broken, yet it's presided over an economy (a society) that has improved remarkably from the edge of the abyss in 2010 - and this is empirically and comparably irrefutable.

I also have a huge problem with billions of euro's worth of public infrastructure being handed over to a semi-state company. The water network certainly needs work carried out on it but the existing system was paid for by you, me, our parents and those before them.

I'm sure you're more than willing to fork up the tens of billions required to repair your forefathers work, but right now and fore the foreseeable future, the state cannot. The principal of a semi-state company that can borrow against its ENORMOUS assets (thanks to your da and his da) and subsequently invest and leaving already stretched state coffers out of it makes sense, the execution at a political level has been awful however.

JRant

BoatMad wrote: »

actually the NPRF was used to finance IW, not the LPT.

what you are saying is that this campaign has only got wings because the people in it feel they can get away with not paying

oh "paddy" what a rebel you are.

Well you'd best tell Noonan he was wrong then.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/490m-meant-for-local-services-diverted-to-irish-water-255608.html

And I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me derogatory names and had a little respect for others instead of calling them a "paddy".

BoatMad

JRant wrote: »

The middle class is being destroyed in the States.

so no, I don't agree that it is a model we should aspire to.

when you have experienced it come back and tell me about it.

The middle class are always squeezed in any back recession, especially in a asset price crash. They are just or more squeezed here.

They are recovering much more quickly then we are.


Again you are mixing up their social model with their tax model.

donvito99

JRant wrote: »

The middle class is being destroyed in the States.

so no, I don't agree that it is a model we should aspire to.

Wut? Like right now? Under a Democratic administration? Please explain.

Everything is being destroyed, violated, "battoned" etc right now according to some people here who contend it's a reality. It's not, it's exaggeration and hysteria.

BoatMad

JRant wrote: »

Well you'd best tell Noonan he was wrong then.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/490m-meant-for-local-services-diverted-to-irish-water-255608.html

And I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me derogatory names and had a little respect for others instead of calling them a "paddy".

I an not denying that tax has been loaned to IW, As Ive repeatedly said IW is a travesty, but the LPT was not specifically diverted into IW.

I will refrain from using "paddy".I see its annoying you.

Duiske

Beaner1 wrote: »

I'm being 100% genuine about this. I'd be fearful of doing it if I was living here full time but I think I might make a stand on my own for a couple of hours somewhere noticeable in Dublin. It would be an interesting way to gauge opinion.

Outside the Jobstown House would be a great spot. You could almost bet your life on being noticed. And if things don't exactly go as you'd planned, sure Tallaght hospital is only down the road.

JRant

donvito99 wrote: »

Bollocks contention. Tell that to the thousands in the public sector told they're sacked, that they've to work more for less with less, and so on.

Look also to hundred or so million saved clamping down on SW fraud.

Water is wasted massively, so why not tax it.



The system may be broken, yet it's presided over an economy (a society) that has improved remarkably from the edge of the abyss in 2010 - and this is empirically and comparably irrefutable.



I'm sure you're more than willing to fork up the tens of billions required to repair your forefathers work, but right now and fore the foreseeable future, the state cannot. The principal of a semi-state company that can borrow against its ENORMOUS assets (thanks to your da and his da) and subsequently invest and leaving already stretched state coffers out of it makes sense, the execution at a political level has been awful however.

Nonsense, the lot of it.

The public sector is a mess.

The SW fraud numbers are hugely exaggerated.

The numbers look good due to cooking the books and massive emigration.

The infrastructure is not there's to begin with. It's just another exercise is fiddling the books to make it look like their doing a sterling job.

JRant

donvito99 wrote: »

Wut? Like right now? Under a Democratic administration? Please explain.

Everything is being destroyed, violated, "battoned" etc right now according to some people here who contend it's a reality. It's not, it's exaggeration and hysteria.

Democrat/Republican, it makes no difference. America is owned by the Lobbyists.

JRant

BoatMad wrote: »

I an not denying that tax has been loaned to IW, As Ive repeatedly said IW is a travesty, but the LPT was not specifically diverted into IW.

I will refrain from using "paddy".I see its annoying you.

Thank you.

"Finance Minister Michael Noonan has admitted that €490m meant for local services is to be diverted into Irish Water.

Mr Noonan said a “subvention” was being made from the local government fund to go to the water metering company.

He said Revenue collects the money and the total property tax returns are then transferred to the Local Government Fund for services. "

Thats taking LPT money to pay for IW, no two ways about it.

donvito99

JRant wrote: »

The public sector is a mess.

The SW fraud numbers are hugely exaggerated.

The numbers look good due to cooking the books and massive emigration.

I see a lot of go-to-words and phrases being trotted out here and little in the way of facts. Do you trust anything of what the Dept of Finance put out or is it all irrelevant because of de emigration and de childeren and de guvvermint.

The infrastructure is not there's to begin with. It's just another exercise is fiddling the books to make it look like their doing a sterling job.

This is the best bit! What in blazes do you mean? The infrastructure isn't there... what... ? So do nothing. Yeah, cause it's already paid for of course meaning it should be there.... hang on a cotton picking minute.

You'd want to be an expert auditor if you're claim that fiddling with the books has turned a recession into growth, or 14% unemployment into 11%, or a 10% deficit into a 3% one.

But this is just more conjecture in a long line of flowery and stirring rhetoric that balks at any scrutiny and contains very little substance e.g. "peaceful protest".

S.O

I hate to say I told you so, Irish water confirms anyone who sent back forms with no contract/no consent is being marked as registered, how many of those 800.000 forms actually filled in the form and signed their details we prob never know, but certainly explains how they have being able to put a spin on their figures registering.

Members of the public who return blank application forms in protest against water charges will be processed as having registered with the utility, Irish Water has confirmed.

The revelation comes as Wexford man and his carer wife discovered they had registered as Irish Water customers despite having sent their blank application form back in protest.

Jim and Julie Nolan this week received a letter from Irish Water confirming their application form had been received and was being processed. Mr Nolan, however, did not fill out the form and only wrote ‘no consent, no contract’ across the document before returning it.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/people-who-return-blank-forms-will-be-registered-with-utility-298279.html

BoatMad

S.O wrote: »

I hate to say I told you so, Irish water confirms anyone who sent back forms with no contract/no consent is being marked as registered, how many of those 800.000 forms actually filled in the form and signed their details we prob never know, but certainly explains how they have being able to put a spin on their figures registering.



http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/people-who-return-blank-forms-will-be-registered-with-utility-298279.html

who cares, if you take the water , you clearly have a contract. the existence of a form is irrelevant , blank , partially filled in, or fully filled in.

Graces7

I was out in the wild countryside near Killarney yesterday and on the gatepost of a lonely house a protest sign re water meters. Will not repeat the wording but the work of an illiterate...Pathetic.

Pocoyo

I wont pay!! and i am genuinely going to let the pro-charges people pay my share,When IW falls it can be replaced with a voluntary charge for the likes of boatmad etc.

Phoebas

S.O wrote: »

I hate to say I told you so, Irish water confirms anyone who sent back forms with no contract/no consent is being marked as registered, how many of those 800.000 forms actually filled in the form and signed their details we prob never know, but certainly explains how they have being able to put a spin on their figures registering.

What? You mean that freeman bollixology doesn't actually work!!!!!

Tail Docker

Tail Docker wrote: »

Very true. Watching the news, I saw a huge Gard hurl himself onto the bonnet and get carried along for several meters. Mutiny afoot? Or just over-eager?

on the 6pm news I saw a young woman with glasses being flung aside by the Gardai - she hit steel bollard really hard and her glasses fell off. She could have been seriously hurt with the force she fell. I felt really upset at that - no excuse for a man to do that to woman even in the line of work/duty.