IW/Anything Water Related-Warning in OP

keithclancy

Tony EH wrote: »

NO.

My alternative is a meter that's used to only meter what people are using, without all the added special extras costs and a ring-fenced "leakage fix" temporary tax.

YOU'LL still get metered and will pay for what you use in the 6 months you're here, so you do pay something.

We'll then we agree on something however I would not agree that the cost should come from General Taxation as it is not very transparent nor is it fair people that have no stake in improving the service or the people who would not pay into that temporary tax you mention.

i.e.
People not paying PAYE.
People that don't use Public water as a service

Tony EH

That's the issue with most (if not all) taxes.

Daith

Tony EH wrote: »

That's the issue with most (if not all) taxes.

So it shouldn't be a tax. If you really want to ringfence money to fix leaks it needs to be a separate charge.

keithclancy

Tony EH wrote: »

That's the issue with most (if not all) taxes.

Indeed it is.

The old system didn't work, the service was terrible, 40% of the Clean potable water is leaking into the ground.

Hiding an additional cost in General Taxation isn't the answer either, its just giving the illusion that it's cheaper than it really is.

Also I think that's pretty much seen as a fail in most studies on water utilities.

Tony EH

Irish Water isn't going to change that.

keithclancy

Tony EH wrote: »

Irish Water isn't going to change that.

I would at the very least say its heart is in the right place, there is a LOT that needs to be fixed but the below outlines my reasons for supporting the direction its going, or where it should be going and why it didn't work the old way, especially considering Ireland's fiscal problems.


http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWSS/Resources/Workingnote9.pdf

Page 21 3.7 Paragraph 2 and 3

The legal authority bestowed upon a utility is often restricted in practice by the external environment.
By their very nature, public utilities are part of a larger public finance formula that renders them
dependent in many ways on the government’s overall fiscal situation and debt ceilings—and no utility
is fully autonomous unless it is financially autonomous. At the heart of this dilemma is the paradox that
resources may be denied to a utility not because of its own financial constraints but because of the
government’s overall fiscal situation. Working within this additional challenge is, in many ways, at the
heart of the public sector reform process for water and sanitation.

Beyond that, management is left to run operations as they deem fit, albeit with strong reporting
requirements and prescribed performance objectives. In many cases, the government-owner has set
specific performance targets that the utility must meet, along with a strong reporting framework
including financial audits and annual and periodic performance status reports. It is not uncommon for
utilities to put together business plans indicating their operational goals and performance
improvement plans that are then monitored periodically during their implementation.

Tony EH

Daith wrote: »

So it shouldn't be a tax. If you really want to ringfence money to fix leaks it needs to be a separate charge.

A "separate charge" to whom?

And what will stop people in Waterford complaining about paying a charge to fix leaks that are occurring in some bog in Kerry?

Or people complaining that they have to pay to fix leaks that they had no part in causing?

Tony EH

keithclancy wrote: »

I would at the very least say its heart is in the right place...

Ostensible propaganda isn't going to work.

There's too much that's come out.

Irish Water needs to be dead.

keithclancy

Tony EH wrote: »

Ostensible propaganda isn't going to work.

There's too much that's come out.

Irish Water needs to be dead.

Did you even read the rest of my post or are you going to clip one line out of context and label it as 'Propaganda'

Because that's what Propaganda is.

Tony EH

You state you think Irish Water's "heart" is in the right place.

I simply cannot agree, not with all that's come out about Irish Water.

It's as toxic as Anglo and needs to go against a wall.

keithclancy

Tony EH wrote: »

You state you think Irish Water's "heart" is in the right place.

I simply cannot agree, not with all that's come out about Irish Water.

It's as toxic as Anglo and needs to go against a wall.

So your solution is to dump the entire thing rather than fix it ?

That would be rather expensive.

Tony EH

Not as expensive as trying to keep fitting a square peg into a round hole.

Irish Water was a wretched company from the very beginning and it's ONLY going to get worse. If the foundation of something is shit, it's doesn't matter how hard you try to build something else on top of it.

YOU can hope for the best and believe in their "heart". You don't even live here for half the year.

People who actually are here all the time shouldn't take the risk with their water.

keithclancy

Tony EH wrote: »

Not as expensive as trying to keep fitting a square peg into a round hole.

Irish Water was a wretched company from the very beginning and it's ONLY going to get worse. If the foundation of something is shit, it's doesn't matter how hard you try to build something else on top of it.

YOU can hope for the best and believe in their "heart". You don't even live here for half the year

My wording perhaps is confusing, to clarify I mean the idea is sound, the problem is the implementation.

i.e. Heart is in the right place.

People who actually are here all the time shouldn't take the risk with their water

How long is enough time ?
Do I have to sign something ?

Again, what is your criteria.

shinzon

keithclancy wrote: »

the problem is the implementation.

you've answered the question there, the implementation is the problem, you can have as much hope of changing irish Water as you want but when your in a bonus driven company whose management have no intention of changing anything then your on a highway to nothing

That the workers are threatening strikes over there bonuses should tell you how much they want to change tbh.

You can pile ****e upon ****e but its never going to smell of roses

Shin

Streetwalker

keithclancy wrote: »

So your solution is to dump the entire thing rather than fix it ?

That would be rather expensive.

Yes it would be expensive but it's important we bury IW once and for all. If they get away with this then it's confirmation the country and the way it's run hasn't changed at all.

Daith

Tony EH wrote: »

A "separate charge" to whom?

A separate charge from a tax. Or include it as part of the property charge if you want.

Tony EH wrote: »

And what will stop people in Waterford complaining about paying a charge to fix leaks that are occurring in some bog in Kerry?

Or people complaining that they have to pay to fix leaks that they had no part in causing?

That's the problem with taxes isn't it? You don't know where it's being spent.

keithclancy

shinzon wrote: »

you've answered the question there, the implementation is the problem, you can have as much hope of changing irish Water as you want but when your in a bonus driven company whose management have no intention of changing anything then your on a highway to nothing

That the workers are threatening strikes over there bonuses should tell you how much they want to change tbh.

You can pile ****e upon ****e but its never going to smell of roses

Shin

Have a read

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWSS/Resources/Workingnote9.pdf

Page 32

A systematic and objective approach is adopted for the career development of staff. The performance of
employees is evaluated yearly through a staff appraisal exercise. Employees may be rewarded in the form of
performance bonuses or promotions. Those who display high potential are groomed. Staff rotate within the
organization to wider experience and perspectives. Poor performers are counseled and advised how to improve
on their performance. If adverse performance persists, dismissal is an option. Absenteeism is low. Employee
turnover is about 2.2 percent, and this is mostly due to retirement.

Bonuses are not necessarily a bad thing when you are trying to improve an organisation, they are just a wage component, everyone sees a 'bonus' as something on top, it's actually just part of your wages.

I would guess they are threatening strike action because it's different to the contract they signed.

Streetwalker

zerks wrote: »

Has Enda & Co. come up with a Black Friday offer if you sign up today?

With Kenny's racist history I'd rather he didn't mention the word black at all.

shinzon

keithclancy wrote: »

Have a read

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWSS/Resources/Workingnote9.pdf

Page 32



Bonuses are not necessarily a bad thing when you are trying to improve an organisation, they are just a wage component, everyone sees a 'bonus' as something on top, it's actually just part of your wages.

I would guess they are threatening strike action because it's different to the contract they signed.

I dunno you seem to want to continue to justify Irish water and be damned the cost of it, the amount of money wasted so far on consultants managers fees etc etc is staggering yet you still blindly defend the indefensible, people have come up with workable alternatives you dismiss them because your out of the country half the year and it wouldn't affect you. You seem to want to saddle the Irish People with a toxic quango jobs for the boys just so long as you can pay your little bit while your here.

Irish water cannot be fixed nor does it want to be fixed cause theres money pouring into it left right for doing **** all as far as I can see, all I see is call after call I have a leak goto the council, council I have a leak, goto Irish water.

Shin

keithclancy

shinzon wrote: »

I dunno you seem to want to continue to justify Irish water and be damned the cost of it, the amount of money wasted so far on consultants managers fees etc etc is staggering yet you still blindly defend the indefensible, people have come up with workable alternatives you dismiss them because your out of the country half the year and it wouldn't affect you. You seem to want to saddle the Irish People with a toxic quango jobs for the boys just so long as you can pay your little bit while your here.

Irish water cannot be fixed nor does it want to be fixed cause theres money pouring into it left right for doing **** all as far as I can see, all I see is call after call I have a leak goto the council, council I have a leak, goto Irish water.

Shin

Well actually your progressive tax rate thing was a problem for people who don't have access to the Public Water system also.

They do not want to pay for something they don't use.

People not paying Irish Income tax (I would guess there's quite a lot in the Border counties and ones that commute to England and the Continent for work) would pay nothing either.

So your progressive tax thing doesn't work for a lot of people and is not just applicable to me.

As I said already, I'm already agreeing with you that the Irish Water setup has its problems that need to be fixed.

Your solution is "no no no it cant be fixed .. .. cronyism .. corruption etc "

And some progressive tax thing, which you are not really sure yourself on how it would work.

Tony EH

Daith wrote: »

That's the problem with taxes isn't it? You don't know where it's being spent.

Hence: RING-FENCED.

Tony EH

keithclancy wrote: »

They do not want to pay for something they don't use.

You mean like private gyms or Johnny boys bonuses for "must try harder", or his second bloated pension?

Yeh, I agree.

Tinkersbell

Tony EH wrote: »

Hence: RING-FENCED.

Like the LPT was?
Then FG/Labour wonder why we don't trust them with our money....

Tony EH

Well...REALLY ring-fenced. It wouldn't be that hard to do if the political will was their and their...ahem...hearts were in the right place.

:pac:

keithclancy

Tony EH wrote: »

You mean like private gyms or Johnny boys bonuses for "must try harder", or his second bloated pension?

Yeh, I agree.

Well here's a question for you

Why does Dublin City Council spend almost 100 euros more per head for Water supply and waste water management than Cork County Council ?

Tony EH

Without access to detailed records on their spending, any answer I give would be pure speculation.

shinzon

keithclancy wrote: »

Well actually your progressive tax rate thing was a problem for people who don't have access to the Public Water system also.

They do not want to pay for something they don't use.

People not paying Irish Income tax (I would guess there's quite a lot in the Border counties and ones that commute to England and the Continent for work) would pay nothing either.

So your progressive tax thing doesn't work for a lot of people and is not just applicable to me.

As I said already, I'm already agreeing with you that the Irish Water setup has its problems that need to be fixed.

Your solution is "no no no it cant be fixed .. .. cronyism .. corruption etc "

And some progressive tax thing, which you are not really sure yourself on how it would work.

I outlined the definition of what Progressive tax was yesterday, im not the government and neither are you so how they would catch people in that tax net would be outlined in the policies they would implement around that particular tax system, in the same way that social welfare are cracking down on fraud and welfare tourists.

I dont make policy im not a minister, I know what progressive tax is but how a government implements policy around it is upto the policy makers not me.

Shin

keithclancy

Tony EH wrote: »

Without access to detailed records on their spending, any answer I give would be pure speculation.

Exactly.

keithclancy

shinzon wrote: »

I outlined the definition of what Progressive tax was yesterday, im not the government and neither are you so how they would catch people in that tax net would be outlined in the policies they would implement around that particular tax system, in the same way that social welfare are cracking down on fraud and welfare tourists.

I dont make policy im not a minister, I know what progressive tax is but how a government implements policy around it is upto the policy makers not me.

Shin

Fraud .... ??? If you don't work in Ireland you don't pay tax in Ireland, simple as that, no 'fraud' involved.

So the solution is something you don't really understand, in that case how can you even say that it's a good one?

You can't just suggest something and then say you don't know how it would work.

I could just say they could use a banana .. it would solve everything

How ? .... LOL I dunno that's the experts job.

shinzon

keithclancy wrote: »

Fraud .... ??? If you don't work in Ireland you don't pay tax in Ireland, simple as that, no 'fraud' involved.

So the solution is something you don't really understand, in that case how can you even say that it's a good one?

You can't just suggest something and then say you don't know how it would work.

I could just say they could use a banana .. it would solve everything

How ? .... LOL I dunno that's the experts job.

one if you read the post correctly instead of jumping the gun as always in relation to fraud im talking social welfare fraud and welfare tourists a similar situation or circumstance could apply to people working outside of Ireland in relation to paying for water through progressive tax. the law was strengthened to allow the government to pursue that cohort of people. I cant see why further laws couldn't be changed to allow the government to collect taxes for part timers like yourself or are you afraid that could happen and they could tax you for water even though your not here for part of the year

And I repeat again ive outlined what a progressive tax is and it is upto the ministers and law makers to implement it, anything I say is based upon supposition and assumption

you asked for alternatives 2 were given one by me and the other by Tony Eh but all you seem interested in is irish water and that itll be the saviour of us all and our infrastructure

And in case you missed it

Progressive Tax taken from the American system

A tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals. The United States income tax is considered progressive: in 2010, individuals who earned up to $8,375 fell into the 10% tax bracket, while individuals earning $373,650 or more fell into the 35% tax bracket. Basically, taxpayers are broken down into categories based on taxable income; the more one earns, the more taxes they will have to pay once they cross the benchmark cut-off points between the different tax bracket levels.

Shin