Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Irish Water must stay on State balance sheet—Eurostat

Options
24567

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Riverireland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 833 ✭✭✭Riverireland


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    In retrospect, it was wrong for the government to lower income taxes at the last budget.

    Even though most workers are better off even including IW charges, it bought them no favours.

    It would be irresponsible to cut income taxes further in lieu of having the IW millstone round its neck.

    The government needs to take heed if they want to be reelected, that Ireland doesn't want socialist taxation.

    The change in take home was so minuscule anyway it hardly was worth giving. More a token gesture than anything else, meaningless.


  • Options
    #33
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Riverireland wrote: »
    The change in take home was so minuscule anyway

    But they weren't

    €175 for anyone from minimum wage to 25k
    €400 for anyone on the average wage.
    €540 for anyone on €50k

    The January tax cuts will cost between €400m - €600m..... quite a lot.

    A repeat would be reckless & garner no votes.

    Whereas, cancelling the water charge wouldn't cost any more, but lock down reelection.


  • Options
    #34
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,709 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    But they weren't

    €175 for anyone from minimum wage to 25k
    €400 for anyone on the average wage.
    €540 for anyone on €50k

    The January tax cuts will cost between €400m - €600m..... quite a lot.

    A repeat would be reckless & garner no votes.

    The only thing i agree with you on.


  • Options
    #35
    Captain Flaps
    Registered Users Posts: 1,834 ✭✭✭Captain Flaps


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    So, actually you aren't in favour of water charges.

    'Individual payees' vs 'some paying for all' are mutually exclusive.

    Well as it stands I'm paying full whack as my apartment can't be metered, whereas a metered family of 4 could be paying less than me and my girlfriend who are very environmentally conscious and make sure to turn off the taps while brushing teeth, only take short showers etc etc

    Surely we're subsidising the others, no? And if we're being pedantic, fine, I am not in favour of water charges but I would have no problem with slightly raised taxes as opposed to what they've just put in place? The cut in income tax introduced in the last budget would more than cover the €240 odd per household that they're looking for now.

    Edit: full disclosure, I have registered with IW as I suspected my landlord might cause trouble if I didn't but I have not paid and will be waiting until after the GE before I decide whether I will or not.


  • Options
    #36
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Protest is designed to put pressure on a government. FG / Labour had the option to stick to their guns or make better decisions. Pressure forces mistakes, and it's why protest works and is important.

    What a ridiculous idea!

    How on earth could it be important to 'force' the Government to make mistakes? Explain to me like I'm five how making our Government make bad choices* is a good idea.

    *which cost us money


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,709 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What a ridiculous idea!

    How on earth could it be important to 'force' the Government to make mistakes? Explain to me like I'm five how making our Government make bad choices* is a good idea.

    *which cost us money

    But they made them themselves.

    Did people pressure get the government to put in failed County Managers as regional managers into IW, did people pressure get the government to appoint a CEO who wasted nearly 100 Million Euro in his most recent last appointment.
    Did people power get the government to put TDs drivers and mates of friends on board positions ?

    The government cost us money. The government was at fault for this. Pointing fingers at the people who are paying for it is laughable tactics.


  • Options
    #38
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    listermint wrote: »
    But they made them themselves.

    Did people pressure get the government to put in failed County Managers as regional managers into IW, did people pressure get the government to appoint a CEO who wasted nearly 100 Million Euro in his most recent last appointment.
    Did people power get the government to put TDs drivers and mates of friends on board positions ?

    The government cost us money. The government was at fault for this. Pointing fingers at the people who are paying for it is laughable tactics.

    This literally has nothing to do with what I posted. Not a thing.

    Please re-read the post and the one I quoted.


  • Options
    #39
    the dark phantom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 772 ✭✭✭the dark phantom


    I always knew they would mess it up, Paying for water infrastructure is one thing but paying for another messy money wasting quango just isn't on, Therefore I never signed up.

    I never even got as much as a letter from them anyway.


  • Options
    #40
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,709 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Deleted User wrote: »
    This literally has nothing to do with what I posted. Not a thing.

    Please re-read the post and the one I quoted.

    Your post implied that the people who forced the government into mistakes was some how bad.

    So people forcing the government to reexamine bad decisions they already made was a bad thing?

    The term mistakes is quite subjective.


  • Options
    #41
    phater phagan
    Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭phater phagan


    I promptly paid my first bill thinking that it would be applied towards the reconstruction and repair of faulty infrastructure to correct the wastage problem. This new information, in addition to the news of salaries and perks for the executives, is giving me second thoughts about paying it now. I received my second bill yesterday and will now take a wait and see approach. If the house cards does fall I don't want to be paying something for nothing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    This literally has nothing to do with what I posted. Not a thing.

    Please re-read the post and the one I quoted.
    If you read that post in context, it's fairly clear the poster simply omitted a word.

    I presume he intended to say that protests force governments to reverse mistakes, or something to that effect.


  • Options
    #43
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    listermint wrote: »
    Your post implied that the people who forced the government into mistakes was some how bad.

    So people forcing the government to reexamine bad decisions they already made was a bad thing?

    The term mistakes is quite subjective.

    Can you answer either the question or the request in my post? They're both pretty direct and they apply to this bolded statement here
    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Protest is designed to put pressure on a government. FG / Labour had the option to stick to their guns or make better decisions. Pressure forces mistakes, and it's why protest works and is important.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    What a ridiculous idea!

    How on earth could it be important to 'force' the Government to make mistakes? Explain to me like I'm five how making our Government make bad choices* is a good idea.

    *which cost us money


  • Options
    #44
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    I'll wait till confirmation from Eurostat and details on the reasoning, but if it is down to the government cutting rates and introducing the grant, they've really painted themselves into a corner on this one. Aside from it seeming to please no one, there's little prospect of them being able to abolish the grant or increase rates prior to the next election.


  • Options
    #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    If you read that post in context, it's fairly clear the poster simply omitted a word.

    I presume he intended to say that protests force governments to reverse mistakes, or something to that effect.

    I'd rather allow him a chance to respond than to presume anything.

    I would also be very interested in which 'mistake reversal' anyone believes that the protesters were putting pressure on the Government to enact if your reading of the post is as the original poster meant it to read.


  • Options
    #46
    Bits_n_Bobs
    Registered Users Posts: 1,300 ✭✭✭Bits_n_Bobs


    - paying for water usage via metering is reasonable
    - that a situation whereby every county council was running it's own water system was grossly inefficient and wasteful
    - that the Irish water infrastructure needs a huge amount of investment that the Irish government can't afford

    So Irish Water is a decent enough solution.

    However the implementation has been an absolute clusterduck from the start.

    I derive a degree of schadenfreude that Eurostat has called it as it is and grudgingly acknowledge that occasionally European rules curb the worst excesses of our politicos cute hoor tendencies.


  • Options
    #47
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,872 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    conservation (grant) me arse! im more worried about iw becoming privatised in the future. paying for water on a metered basis is a good idea though.


  • Options
    #48
    Uncle Ben
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,843 ✭✭✭Uncle Ben


    Jep Gambardella wrote: »
    I'll wait till confirmation from Eurostat and details on the reasoning, but if it is down to the government cutting rates and introducing the grant, they've really painted themselves into a corner on this one. Aside from it seeming to please no one, there's little prospect of them being able to abolish the grant or increase rates prior to the next election.

    Your post sums up exactly how this is going to pan out. Catch 22 for Kelly and his Labour backbenchers.


  • Options
    #49
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    This leaves IW exactly where SF want it....

    A vindication of sorts.

    I think all it means is that water will end up costing us more one way or another.

    Either IW is retained in state ownership and becomes another bloated, inefficient state service or it's placed at arms length and made stand on it's own two feet.

    Regardless, I think water charges are here to stay, which is not a bad thing in principle.

    No doubt some groups will regard this as some kind of victory / vindication but it's probably going to just lead to us paying more.

    My own view is that the company should have been set up as a proper arms length utility and that might have gone some way to mitigate the politics - it would also help bring some competition into the market.


  • Options
    #50
    zl1whqvjs75cdy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,042 ✭✭✭zl1whqvjs75cdy


    phater phagan wrote: »
    I promptly paid my first bill thinking that it would be applied towards the reconstruction and repair of faulty infrastructure to correct the wastage problem. This new information, in addition to the news of salaries and perks for the executives, is giving me second thoughts about paying it now. I received my second bill yesterday and will now take a wait and see approach. If the house cards does fall I don't want to be paying something for nothing.

    I'm in the same boat, I'll be holding off on paying the next bill until we see what happens.


  • Options
    #51
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »
    I'm in the same boat, I'll be holding off on paying the next bill until we see what happens.

    I think you will see this happening more and more, speeding up the tailspin to the ground.

    Will FG/LAB be going to the country soon?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,158 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    What a ridiculous idea!

    How on earth could it be important to 'force' the Government to make mistakes? Explain to me like I'm five how making our Government make bad choices* is a good idea.

    *which cost us money

    If I want IW as currently constituted to fail and be redrawn then I logically want to pressure the government to be forced to revisit it.


  • Options
    #53
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Will FG/LAB be going to the country soon?

    The Dáil term is 5 years.

    So, you can to the sums on that one.


  • Options
    #54
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,842 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I think you will see this happening more and more, speeding up the tailspin to the ground.

    Will FG/LAB be going to the country soon?

    Hard to be sure, but one more knock, like for instance the banking inquiry collapsing or Siteserv something, something and it will no longer be up to them.

    Not a good time to be a low profile Govt backbencher, damned if they do, damned if they dont.


  • Options
    #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    If I want IW as currently constituted to fail and be redrawn then I logically want to pressure the government to be forced to revisit it.

    Doesn't answer the question.

    You said that protests force pressure, and that pressure forces mistakes.

    The logical conclusion is that a protester might want the Government to make mistakes.

    Why would you want our Government to make mistakes?


  • Options
    #56
    nice_guy80
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,723 ✭✭✭nice_guy80


    €500 million knocked off the budget give away...

    Enda will kick the election into 2016 now to ensure the USC reductions start appearing in people's pay packets


  • Options
    #57
    phater phagan
    Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭phater phagan


    I imagine that the chances of an election being called before the statutory term is nil and zero.


  • Options
    #58
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,158 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Doesn't answer the question.

    You said that protests force pressure, and that pressure forces mistakes.

    The logical conclusion is that a protester might want the Government to make mistakes.

    Why would you want our Government to make mistakes?

    Because I want IW to fail in such a way that it is pulled back to the drawing board. As such, I am not interested in them making decisions that keep a fundamentally flawed ship afloat.

    The ultimate mistake was the creation of IW in its current guise and we need that reversed imo (and the opinion of the protest movement). And we need to force further mistakes to see the fundamental one reversed.

    You know this of course, but are looking to achieve a buzzword victory.


  • Options
    #59
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,158 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    phater phagan wrote: »
    I imagine that the chances of an election being called before the statutory term is nil and zero.

    I don't think going the full statutory term is an option. Fighting an election in the wake of the 100 year anniversary of the rising would not be helpful to FG imo and the longer a dead duck parliament sits in session the greater the risk of something unforeseen rearing its head.


  • Options
    #60
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Jep Gambardella wrote: »
    I'll wait till confirmation from Eurostat and details on the reasoning, but if it is down to the government cutting rates and introducing the grant, they've really painted themselves into a corner on this one. Aside from it seeming to please no one, there's little prospect of them being able to abolish the grant or increase rates prior to the next election.
    Same. There is little-to-no point in speculating until the decision is published. The key will be IMHO whether they reviewed the initial billing model of an allowance and payment over same; as opposed to the capped/grant system they put in place as a result of the protests.

    Either way, keeping Irish Water on the books until 2017 is not good for the taxpayer - although they claim it won't have an impact on the budget this year, it's logical the government will be more cautious this year considering there will certainly be an impact next year.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Because I want IW to fail in such a way that it is pulled back to the drawing board. As such, I am not interested in them making decisions that keep a fundamentally flawed ship afloat.

    The ultimate mistake was the creation of IW in its current guise and we need that reversed imo (and the opinion of the protest movement). And we need to force further mistakes to see the fundamental one reversed.

    You know this of course, but are looking to achieve a buzzword victory.

    Not really. That's why I'm asking. It reads as though you're more interested in a Government failing than in it making good beneficial decisions.

    What is the alternative proposal for the funding of the maintenance and development of the Water provision facilities in Ireland that you'd support?

    Which proposal are you hoping the protests can force the Government to change to?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement